Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fine Payment Defaults

David Anderson: How many people were in custody in Northern Ireland for defaulting on fine payments at the latest date for which figures are available.

Paul Goggins: Today 30 people are in prison in Northern Ireland for fine default. Although the numbers can fluctuate and at any time be quite low, fine defaulters represent about 2,000 prison receptions per year. Next month, I shall begin consultation on a range of proposals for dealing more effectively with fine defaulters.

David Anderson: Before putting my question to the Minister, may I ask the whole House to condemn unanimously the attack on a PSNI officer earlier this week? We send our support to all parties that have condemned the attack and we send our best wishes to the police officer and his family.
	Will anything be done to disincentivise the sending of fine defaulters to prison? At the moment, that seems an easy option. Nine in 10 people in prison for defaulting on fines are there for fines of less than £600. Other methods must be found to make sure that people do not use it as an easy option.

Paul Goggins: First, the whole House will join my hon. Friend in condemning the cowardly people who perpetrated the dreadful attack on Police Officer Ryan Crozier on Monday. The heartfelt, warm wishes of the House go out to Police Officer Crozier and his family. He was seriously hurt, but is beginning to recover in hospital. The Chief Constable aptly described the attack as having been carried out by those who are "lashing out" because they "are in their endgame". He is right, and we all condemn their actions.
	I turn to my hon. Friend's question. Of course we need a substantial, sustainable alternative to imprisonment for fine defaulters. We have begun that by bringing in the supervised activity order through the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. However, people should pay the fines given to them in court, and next month I shall bring forward proposals to make sure that if people will not pay, the fines will be deducted from their earnings or benefits and that there will be much stricter enforcement by the courts.

Patrick Cormack: May I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) and the Minister about that cowardly and brutal attack on Police Officer Crozier? It was good to see that Mr. McGuinness was among the first visitors to the hospital.
	I also associate myself with the other remarks made by the hon. Member for Blaydon. Does the Minister agree that it is difficult to understand—let alone explain and justify—the fact that people with a few hundred pounds owing are put in jail, while people who have defrauded the Exchequer of millions through fuel smuggling appear to get suspended sentences?

Paul Goggins: In individual cases, it will always be for the judges to decide the appropriate penalty. My role as Minister with responsibility for criminal justice and policing is to make sure that courts have sufficient powers and a range of powers. I want on the one hand to be tougher, but on the other to make sure that when fines and other non-custodial sentences are handed out, they are properly adhered to.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in the issue of sentencing. I am pleased to confirm that following Royal Assent for the criminal justice order last Wednesday, I shall tomorrow sign the order to commence the new indeterminate and extended prison sentences, so that anybody who tomorrow or any day afterwards commits a serious sexual or violent offence and is deemed to be dangerous can be sent to prison on an indeterminate sentence.

Nigel Dodds: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the remarks made in respect of Police Officer Crozier, whom we wish a speedy recovery.
	On the remarks that the Minister has just made, I welcome the implementation this week of the new law in relation to indeterminate sentencing and the abolition of the automatic 50 per cent. remission for serious sexual offences. My party fought for that for a long time; it was also demanded by the people of Northern Ireland. Will the Minister say what sort of impact the changes are likely to have on custodial sentences and prison places?

Paul Goggins: There is, of course, universal condemnation of the attack on the police officer, just as there is universal support for the criminal justice order and the new provisions. There will be a net increase in the number of prisoners in the system over the next few years as a result of the longer sentences and of people who do not keep their licence conditions being brought back to prison, where they will face a further period of incarceration. There will also be more people on community sentences, and that is entirely right. I say to the hon. Gentleman, his party colleagues and colleagues on both sides of the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will begin carefully to prepare the path towards the completion of the devolution of policing and justice.

Michael Moore: May I join all others, including the Minister, in condemning the callous and cowardly attack on the police officer on Monday night and wish him a speedy recovery? I wish equally that we will have a speedy return to justice for those who perpetrated this deed. It is appropriate that we pay tribute once again to the courage and bravery of all those who serve in the PSNI and other services.
	On some estimates, the prison population in Northern Ireland will double by 2020. Given the issue of fine defaulters and the other issues raised by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), can the Minister be a bit more specific about how he and his Secretary of State are going to address the growing pressures that this will undoubtedly place on the Northern Ireland Prison Service?

Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend and I have set aside some £14 million in the current spending period to commit to the Prison Service to ensure that more places, and the relevant programmes, are available. We have also invested in an unprecedented way in the delivery of the probation service. There will be more than 50 additional probation officers as a result of the investment that we are making because we need provision in the community and extra provision in prison. I can further tell the hon. Gentleman that we are investing £70 million in building 400 new prison places that will be available over the next three-year period. We are building capacity, we are building the programmes, and the message that goes out is: "If you are committing offences in Northern Ireland you will be brought to justice and dealt with appropriately."

Cross-Border Fishing

Ann Winterton: What recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in the Government of the Republic of Ireland on cross-border fishing issues.

Paul Goggins: Sea fisheries are now a matter for the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.

Ann Winterton: Irrespective of that, can the Minister confirm whether there will be a cod swap next year to provide restitution to the Northern Ireland fishing industry of the Irish sea cod that was lost to it owing to the unfair application of the Hague preference?

Paul Goggins: I know that the hon. Lady is very well informed about these matters, perhaps far better informed than I am. I will certainly be happy to convey her comments and concerns to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle Gildernew, who I am sure will be interested to know about them. I can assure the hon. Lady that, particularly in relation to north-south co-operation on these issues, which is very important, there is regular contact between the Minister and her counterpart in the Republic, not least in terms of the preparations for the annual European Fisheries Council in December in Brussels, which is also very important. I am sure that that co-operation will continue, and I will happily ensure that the hon. Lady's remarks are given to the Minister.

Iris Robinson: Does the Minister know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reports to the European Union in the context of fishing? Along with the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), I ask the Minister to agree that the fishing industry in Northern Ireland has experienced unparalleled decline in recent years, that all measures within the power of this Government must be taken to ensure that the industry remains viable, and that the UK Government should follow the lead of the French and Spanish Governments and take advantage of measures such as those provided for through de minimis arrangements to assist UK fishing fleets as a whole, but particularly in Northern Ireland, where the industry is on its knees.

Paul Goggins: Again, the hon. Lady is very well informed on these issues and cares passionately about them. One of the things that I have discovered in recent days is the complexity of the responsibilities in relation to marine matters. I know, for example, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for the sea bed, but what swims around in the sea above it is a devolved matter. We are absolutely at one—this was evident in the very successful investment conference that took place last week—as to the need to have a thriving and vibrant economy in Northern Ireland. That includes the fishing industry, and we will continue to lend what support we can.

Gang Violence

Nicholas Winterton: What recent assessment he has made of the level of gang violence in Northern Ireland.

Shaun Woodward: Gang violence in Northern Ireland has traditionally manifested itself through paramilitary activity and organised crime. While the latest Independent Monitoring Commission report indicates a general downward trend in incidents of paramilitary violence, Monday's cowardly attack on the young police officer, Ryan Crozier, reminds us of the continued threat posed by a small number of dissidents who today have no support whatsoever throughout the community.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Can he tell the House when paramilitary groups such as the Irish republican liberation army will no longer have the umbrella of decommissioning to hide under and instead be charged as criminals for holding weapons?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the long term, the kind of structures that we have introduced to ensure that we could get to the peaceful, prosperous Northern Ireland of today will be phased out. When that moment comes, I am more than prepared to work with all hon. Members and political parties. I hope that we are beginning to approach the moment when we can signal that we will do so, but I still regret that, unfortunately, a small number of people continue to operate in such a way. Although we are nearly in a normalised society, regrettably we are not quite there.

Eddie McGrady: I also would like to be associated with the earlier speakers in their sympathy for Constable Crozier, who to me was an expression of the new dimension in Northern Ireland. That young man joined the police force only three years ago, and he is the expression of our hope for the future. I hope that the perpetrators will be brought to justice as soon as possible.
	On the Government's intention to address the root cause of gang violence, particularly the knife-wielding culture, does the Minister agree that there must be a combined approach between Government and community? If so, how does he reconcile that intention with the recent decision to withdraw extended schools funding in Northern Ireland, which was used by schools to put in place innovative and inclusive programmes for disadvantaged areas? A cross-cutting policy simply does not exist in that area.

Shaun Woodward: Like all hon. Members, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for Police Officer Crozier. Although we no longer have specific responsibility for schools in Northern Ireland, it none the less falls on us to have responsibility for criminal justice and policing until hon. Members and political parties are ready to assume devolution of those matters. That is why in the new Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order we will be introducing specific powers to deal with knife crime in relation to gang culture, raising the age at which knives can be purchased and, critically, dealing more severely with those who abuse that. Regardless of when the devolution of policing and criminal justice takes place, it will fall on the community itself, as well as those elected from the community, to deal with the issue. It is one that we should all feel responsibility for.

Peter Robinson: Is it not the case that in several locations major gangs that were formerly associated with paramilitary organisations are operating major criminal enterprises? Could the Secretary of State indicate what plans the Chief Constable has to ensure that those gangs are broken up and the perpetrators, who are well known not only in the local community, but to the police, are put behind bars?

Shaun Woodward: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, since I think that this is the first time I have had the chance to do so in this House, on having been made leader elect of his party. I am sure that we all look forward to working with him when he assumes that office at the end of the month, and we will again give our very best wishes to his predecessor—when that moment comes; he is, of course, still very much a presence.
	I am conscious of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Of course the Chief Constable has operational independence on these matters, but we do consult him. I am confident that he is more than aware of the need to break up the gangs. He and his officers have achieved some spectacular results, but we have to remain ever vigilant and deal with the issue, which as the hon. Gentleman said is regrettably still a vestige of the paramilitary past of Northern Ireland.

Laurence Robertson: We on the Conservative Benches also condemn the attack on Officer Crozier. I am afraid that the Independent Monitoring Commission report, which shows how far Northern Ireland has come with regard to violence, is still littered with examples of offences. We are told that the ONH—ėglaigh na h�ireannis
	more seriously active in the six months under the review
	of the report, and carried out its first murder on 12 February. The breakaway south-east Antrim faction's dispute with the Ulster Defence Association led to the shooting of a police officer. Those are very worrying trends, and I am sure that the Secretary of State shares our concerns about them. What extra measures can he take to stamp out that criminal and deadly violence?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to the 18th IMC report, which deals with matters relating to organised crime, too. I am sure that he will have noted that significant progress has been made on a number of fronts. However, it is perfectly clear that in one specific areathat is, in relation to ėglaigh na h�ireannas well as others, we now need to take steps. That is why I am laying before the House today a new order that will take into account specified organisations. The order will result in the de-specification of the UVF Red Hand Commandos, but it will now specify ėglaigh na h�ireann.

Parades (Drumcree/Garvaghy Road)

David Simpson: What steps he is taking to contribute to the resolution of the Drumcree/Garvaghy road parading dispute.

Shaun Woodward: We remain committed to finding a successful resolution and we support the position of the Parades Commission that local dialogue is the best way to achieve this.

David Simpson: Further to that point, does the Secretary of State agree that no one who refuses to engage in that dialogue ought to be rewarded for their refusal?

Shaun Woodward: Let me begin by paying tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done in trying to achieve dialogue between communities on matters relating to parading, and particularly the work that he has done with the Portadown District Orange to encourage it to enter into dialoguehe was referring specifically, I think, to the Garvaghy road residents. He has helped to move the order to engage without preconditions or a predetermined outcome. I praise him fully for his work with the community. I hope that others in the community will now recognise that they should match that transformation and engage in the dialogue. I encourage all members of the community, regardless of the history, to enter into that dialogue.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry

Andrew MacKay: What his most recent estimate is of the final cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry.

Shaun Woodward: So far, the cost of the inquiry has reached in excess of 182 million, but let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman. However concerned all hon. Members will be about such costs, we should be careful not to confuse the cost with the value and the huge importance of the inquiry.

Andrew MacKay: Let me put it to the Secretary of State that there is no question of our confusing cost and value. We can spot the fact that the process is a huge waste of taxpayers' money. Does he agree that if we had known at the beginning how much it would cost, particularly with legal fees, we would not have proceeded? The process has done a great deal of harm in Northern Ireland, not the good that we hoped.

Shaun Woodward: Far be it from me to wish to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that in this case I must. The inquiry has been essential in enabling us to reach the point in Northern Ireland where we can enjoy the peace, prosperity and devolution that we have witnessed and the remaining stages that I am confident will take place. As he rightly says, the inquiry has taken a lot longer and cost a huge amount more than we thought. However, that is why the Government introduced the Inquiries Act 2005to control the cost of inquiries. Although I regret the spiralling legal costs, which we have tried to control, I in no way wish to confuse that with the value of the inquiry, which has been essential to the peace process.

Mark Durkan: The families of the Bloody Sunday victims share that frustration at the length and cost of the Saville inquiry, but understand better than others the reason for them. When the Secretary of State receives the report of the Saville inquiry, will he allow lawyers acting on behalf of the Government and military days and weeks to go through it before publication, and if so, what equal consideration will be extended to the families of the Bloody Sunday victims?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman has long made a sincere and deeply felt argument on behalf of the families who are affected by the inquiry. All hon. Members recognise that the issue is sensitive, especially for those families. My hon. Friend the Minister of State met the families only last month. We have committed ourselves to involving them in the arrangements for the publication of the report, which must be presented to the House first, and I will hold them uppermost in my mind.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: One of the consequences of inquiries such as Saville is that they put enormous pressure on the resources of the police service. The Secretary of State has reduced the budget for the police service in the current year, and the Chief Constable has indicated that he is close to the tipping point in regard to his ability to deliver the necessary police input for these inquiries. Will the Secretary of State look again at increasing the budget in order to offset the cost of the PSNI's role in these inquiries?

Shaun Woodward: I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I must of course disagree with the idea that we have reduced the budget. The fact is that the PSNI will have a budget of nearly 1 billion for this year. That is an extremely large budget, and I am confident that every penny of it will be well spent. The PSNI has to spend a great deal of time dealing with the past, and it matters that it should do so. I believe that it is appropriately funded to do that work, despite the pressures that it faces. I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to work with the Eames consultative group on the past, to see whether we can find other, more effective ways of dealing with some of the issues that are undoubtedly a legacy of the past.

Owen Paterson: I should like to associate Her Majesty's official Opposition with the comments made by the Secretary of State on the disgraceful attack on Police Officer Crozier. We wish him a speedy recovery, and we pay tribute to the bravery of all PSNI officers. We also congratulate the passer-by who showed great courage in rescuing him.
	The Saville inquiry was set up 10 years ago. It last took evidence in 2004, its costs are heading towards 200 million, of which nearly half has been paid to lawyers, and there is no sign of the report appearing. Does the Secretary of State really think that that is acceptable?

Shaun Woodward: The hon. Gentleman will know that, because the Saville inquiry was set up before the Inquiries Act 2005, the Government are ultimately unable to control the legal costs involved, despite the constant pressure that we are bringing to bear on the inquiry to be cost-effective. However, for the families involved, and for the nationalist community, which was so unsettled by the way in which the matter had been dealt with historically, it was absolutely right that my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister committed the Government to conducting the inquiry. It has taken longer and cost more than we wanted it to, but at the end of the day we have to separate cost and value, and the value of this inquiry is incalculable.

Owen Paterson: That was an unsatisfactory reply, because it showed that the delay has been caused by the manner in which the Government set up the inquiry. Will the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that no future historical inquiry will be as open-ended and extravagant as Saville, given his new remit under the Inquiries Act 2005?

Shaun Woodward: It is perfectly clear that the Inquiries Act has set out precisely how any future inquiry should be conducted. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, in all the conversations that I have had about inquiries, I have insisted that any future inquiry would have to be held under the terms of the Act.

Criminal Damage (Compensation)

William McCrea: What the timetable is for the implementation of the proposed compensation schemes relating to criminal damage in Northern Ireland.

Paul Goggins: I intend to issue a consultation document in June on proposed changes to the criminal damage legislation as it applies to community halls. Subject to that consultation, I intend to lay a draft order in the autumn.

William McCrea: I thank the Minister for the series of meetings that have taken place between my DUP colleagues and the Orange Institution on this serious matter, and also for the positive outcomes that have been achieved thus far. Can he confirm that he would expedite the process, should there be a continuation of this despicable campaign to destroy Orange halls?

Paul Goggins: I welcome the constructive engagement of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and of the leadership of the Orange Order. The most important thing was to ensure that we minimised the attacks on Orange halls, and I am pleased to say that, to date this year, there have been only eight attacks, compared with 58 last year. That is an improvement. We will bring forward the proposals for proper consultation and bring them into effect in due course.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is long past time for meaningful change to be made to facilitate the claims of victims, who up to now have had to prove often impossible parameters in regard to their claims? Does he agree that, where there is clear evidence of a co-ordinated attack on an Orange hall or on Gaelic Athletic Association premises, for example, a statement from a senior policeman to the effect that there has been a co-ordinated, syndicated conspiracy should be enough to prove entitlement?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One of my prime objectives over recent months has been to ensure that the existing compensation scheme works more effectively so that where there is evidence of an illegal organisation's involvement, a Chief Constable's certificate should be issued, and where three or more people are conspiring to create damage, compensation should be paid. I am trying to make the present system work more effectively, as well as to extend the provisions as I have outlined.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Mohammad Sarwar: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 May.

Gordon Brown: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mohammad Sarwar: Will my right hon. Friend join me and the House in wishing every success to Rangers football team, which is proud to be Scottish and British, in bringing the UEFA cup to Glasgow?
	My right hon. Friend will be aware that 1.5 million survivors of the cyclone in Burma are facing starvation, disease and, ultimately, death. Will he tell the House what the Government are doing to get aid through to those people who are in desperate need?

Gordon Brown: I think the whole House will, of course, want to send best wishes to Rangers football club, which is playing against St. Petersburg in Manchester this evening.
	My hon. Friend raises a point that is touching the conscience of the whole world: a natural disaster in Burma has been turned, by the actions of a despicable regime, into a human catastrophea man-made catastrophe as a result of its actions. While there is a huge debate about some of the issues surrounding it, the key thing for all of us is to get aid to the people of Burma as quickly as possible by the means available to us. That is why, over the last few hours, a British plane has arrived in Rangoon and three others will arrive very soon. More planes will be sent over the next few days. The first will provide shelter for 45,000 people. That is also why, over the next day or two, about 60 flights in total will have arrived in Rangoon. There has been an improvement, but it is not good enough.
	It is not good enough because of the needs of the Burmese peoplethe one and a half million who face famine and other distressand it is not good enough because the regime is still preventing aid from getting to the rest of the country. That is why I asked Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to convene an emergency summit and why I asked himI believe he is considering it nowto go to the country and also why Lord Malloch-Brown has gone to Asia to talk to Asian Ministers about how they can co-ordinate action. While it is right to debate the responsibility to protect as well as air drops, the key thing at the moment is to pressure the regime by getting all countries in Asia uniting with all of us to make sure that aid gets as quickly as possible to the people of Burma. We are ready to do everything in our powerHMS Westminster is in the area and we are working with French and American shipsto do so. At the same time, we have a humanitarian team in Rangoon ready to do everything it can in the future. I hope that the whole House will unite in saying that the Burmese regime must let into the country all aid workers and all aid immediately.

David Cameron: I join the Prime Minister in wishing Rangers well. I am sure he is right to say that the whole House will support that, but I wonder whether the Prime Minister's former ministerial colleague who was the chairman of Celtic football club would take the same view. We will see.
	More importantly, the whole House will want to express our sympathy for the victims of the earthquake in Sichuan. Everyone will have seen the very swift response of the Chinese Government, which is in stark contrast to the reaction of the regime in Burma, where the neglect of the military junta is turning a natural disaster into a man-made catastrophe. I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for his update. He rightly says that the Burmese Government must let aid through, but may I push him a little further on that? If that does not happen, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to take further steps, including raising the issue of the responsibility to protect at the UN and supporting international efforts to deliver aid directly?

Gordon Brown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the action that we have already taken. Of course we will raise the issue of responsibility to protect at the United Nations, and of course we will leave ourselves open to considering the issue of air drops. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that everyone on the ground and every aid agency that is advising us says that the best way of getting aid to the Burmese people quickly is to continue the pressure on the Burmese Governmentwhich has yielded some results, but not sufficient results, in the last few daysso that Asian countries are in a position to help us to convey the aid that is available to those people.
	I must also tell the right hon. Gentleman that when we have tried to arrange a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss the issue, we have been blocked by other countries. That is why I have asked Ban Ki-moon to hold an emergency summit of the kind that Kofi Annan held at the time of the 2004 tsunami. I believe that progress is being made in regard to the summit, and I hope it will be a means of bringing additional pressure to bear on the Burmese Government through Asia. I do not rule out anything, and no one should rule out anything, but let us be honest. All the aid agencies and others are telling us exactly the same: we must intensify the pressure to get more aid in through the Burmese Government as quickly as possible.

David Cameron: Of course the Prime Minister is right to say that the best way of providing direct aid is to persuade the Burmese Government to open up the country to allow the aid agencies in, but I think it is worth setting a deadline for when we must say that not enough has got through and more should be done. It is true that the experts say that only a fifth of direct aid will get through, but a fifth of something is better than 0 per cent. of nothing.
	Can the Prime Minister clarify an aspect of the responsibility to protect? The British ambassador to the UN has said that the UK's responsibility to protect does not apply to natural disasters, but yesterday the Foreign Secretary said that it certainly could. Will the Prime Minister make it absolutely clear that, in our view, the responsibility to protect should be extended to Burma and to Burmese people at this time?

Gordon Brown: There are two ways of proceeding. There is the responsibility to protect and there is the right to humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in 1999. We are leaving all the options open.
	I must correct the right hon. Gentleman: we must not fall for the impression that there is some easy answer in air drops. Like others, I am prepared to consider them, but Save the Children said this morning:
	Right now, talk of air drops is a distraction. Air drops are an ineffective way of delivering aid. We must continue to push for access. We are exploring other creative ways
	to get rid of the blockages
	such as boats.
	Oxfam too has said that air drops are a distraction, and the World Food Programme, which is co-ordinating aid in Rangoon, has said that they would be counter-productive. Water supplies cannot be dropped from the air without putting people in the country at risk.
	I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I rule out nothing, but we must not give the public of Britain or other countries the impression that the best course is not the one that we are proposing: to intensify pressure on the Burmese Government, and to ensure that aid reaches the people of Burma.

Sharon Hodgson: Every year thousands of little angels are supported by children's hospice services, but funding levels are often far lower than those for comparative services for adults. In my constituency, the Grace House appeal is selling crystal angels to raise funds to build a hospice. Will the Prime Minister give his support to the campaign, and also take steps to improve funding levels for children's hospices?

Gordon Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Last week I met a delegation to discuss how we could improve funding for hospices in the future. We have set aside additional money to support all hospices and hospice at home services for children for up to five years, with funding of 10 million a year until 2011, and we are publishing Better Care: Better Lives, which was launched in February and which is our strategy for children's palliative care.
	This is a vexed issue for many parents. I recognise that, and I know that Governments must do more. We will continue to look at what more we can actually do.

Nicholas Clegg: Yesterday's announcement was a complete charade. The Government pretend to have solved the 10p problem when they have not, and the Conservatives seem only to be concerned about the effect on their chances in a by-election. How can they all ignore the fact that even after yesterday's announcement, more than 1 million of the poorest people in the country are still worse off? Do they not matter?

Gordon Brown: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. His party's former acting leader and current shadow Chancellor welcomed our announcement yesterday. He welcomed it because 22 million people will be better off. No Government have a better record of tackling poverty than this Government. We have taken 600,000 children out of poverty, another 300,000 children are to be taken out of poverty, and 1 million pensioners are being taken out of poverty. No Liberal policy would ever have achieved that.

Nicholas Clegg: The fact remains that under a Labour Government the worst paid are worse off. Why do they have to pay for the Prime Minister's incompetence? They cannot wait any longer, so when will he come back to the House with specific proposals to compensate in full the 1 million people he has betrayed?

Gordon Brown: We have said that we will come back in the pre-Budget report, but the right hon. Gentleman must not forget the fact that every person in the country who is an income tax payer at the basic rate will receive 120. Twenty-two million people will receive that money, and households in which there are two such people will receive 240. We have done what we said we would do to offset the average losses, and we are the only Government who are taking people out of povertypoverty trebled under the Conservative Government.

Michael Jabez Foster: Thanks to Government investment, Hastings will soon have a new state-of-the-art health centre where GPs will be working together to provide and extend access to people in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the proposals made by some to limit the contract already made with GPs for weekend and evening access would undermine

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is too long.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the advances that have been made in GP services in this country. There is now weekend opening in places where there was not weekend opening before. There is now access to GP after-hours services where there was not such access in the evenings before. The party that would put this at risk is the Conservative party, which says it would backtrack on the promise that has been made and voted on by GPs.

David Cameron: Yesterday, it was revealed that in private the Housing Minister told the Cabinet that house prices would fall by up to 10 per cent. this year, house building was stalling and further falls were predicted. Yet in public the same Minister said the housing market was strong. Does the Prime Minister agree that she was not being straight with people?

Gordon Brown: It is because of the condition of the housing market that I will be announcing new measures in my statement after Question Time. The housing situation has deteriorated in the last few weeks, and we will be taking measures to protect first-time buyers and give them new opportunities, to take out stock that is not being bought so that housing associations and other authorities can buy it, and to help people who are facing repossession. I thought the Opposition would support that, but perhaps they do not remember that 15 years ago they caused the most repossessions we have ever seen in our history.

David Cameron: People want to hear about the future, and people want some answers from the Prime Minister. Yesterday, we all paid 2.7 billion to keep the Prime Minister in his job; the least he can do is earn it by answering some questions. Does he not understand that he is never going to get out of the hole he has dug for himself unless he starts being straight with people? In all other walks of life, if someone said something like that, the boss would say they should not have done and they got it wrong. So let me try another question: did the timing of the tax announcement yesterday have anything to do with the by-election?

Gordon Brown: As the Chancellor said yesterday, he had to bring forward his proposals if they were to go into the Finance Bill to be legislated now. I thought that the Conservatives would welcome our announcement that 22 million people will benefit, but they have not even told us yet whether they support our plan. The reason for that is that their tax priorities are further cuts in inheritance tax and stamp duty on sharesgiving money to those people who are already rich. They have never at any time said that their priority is the low paid and the poorest members of our society. That is the Conservative party that caused 15 per cent. interest rates and 3 million unemployed, and we will never forget the record repossessions that happened when the right hon. Gentleman was adviser to the Chancellor.

David Cameron: There we have it [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the right hon. Gentleman.

David Cameron: There we have itthe cancelled election had nothing to do with the polls, and yesterday's announcement had nothing to do with the by-election; another day, another complete failure to be straight with people.
	Let us try another one. Last week, the Prime Minister claimed that Wendy Alexander was not calling for an early referendum on Scottish independence. Will he now admit that she was calling for an early referendum and that on this issue they simply do not agree? Can he take this one chance to be straight with people?

Gordon Brown: I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman last week immediately after Question Time to point out, when he challenged me, that there is no plan for legislation for a referendum in Scotland; there is no plan at Westminster, otherwise we would have heard it; and there is no plan to put legislation through the Scottish Parliament, now or in the immediate future.
	I thought that the Conservative party would want to join the Labour party in supporting the Union. I thought that it would want to support the integrity of the United Kingdom against the nationalist parties, but all we have is petty point scoring when what we actually want is a defence of the Union. It is about time the leader of the Conservative party made one.

David Cameron: The party that is putting the Union at risk is the Labour party, by playing games for an early referendum at a time when Wendy Alexander and the Prime Minister are the two most unpopular politicians on the planet. What could do more to put the Union at risk? Is not a big part of the disastrous premiership his failure to be straight with people? He will not be straight about the election; he will not be straight about the European treaty; he will not be straight about the 10p tax losers; and even on the one thing that people thought he would care aboutthe Unionhe will not be straight. Is that not what we are seeing: a Prime Minister putting short-term decisions before the national interest?

Gordon Brown: It is the right hon. Gentleman who is playing politics. He never told us whether he supported our tax package and he does not tell us now whether he is supporting us on the Union. It is about time that instead of being the salesman, he started showing some substance about policy. We are the party helping 22 million people; we are the party with record employment figures in this country; we are the party taking more people out of poverty; and we are the party expanding the national health service. His policies would put all that at risk.

Jeff Ennis: May I tell the Prime Minister that foreign investment in Yorkshire and Humber has increased by a staggering 80 per cent. in the past 12 months? That is mainly thanks to the sound economic policies of this Labour Government and the good offices of Yorkshire Forward. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Barnsley-based company Lubrizol on winning Yorkshire Forward's best exporter of the year award?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a champion of new industry for Yorkshire, and I want to congratulate Yorkshire Forward on the work that it does. The fact is that even in a difficult world situation, when unemployment has been rising in other countries, the level of employment in Britain is rising today to 29.5 million people, and half a million more people are in employment than there were a year ago. That is partly because of the new deal and the regional intervention that we are taking. We do not shirk from the necessity of intervening to protect, safeguard and advance jobs in the economy. I hope that other parties will join us in supporting the new deal in the future.

Jo Swinson: As the Leader of the Opposition has fessed up to breaking his promise to end Punch and Judy politics, does the Prime Minister still think that this weekly knockabout is the best way for MPs to hold his Government to account?

Gordon Brown: Yes, and I hope that there will be a vigorous debate on our legislative programme when we put it forward in the next few minutes. I hope that there will be a debate in this House, and in all regions and nations of the country, about what we are proposing. That is the proper way to make decisions about the future of the country.

Ronnie Campbell: Temporary workers have been exploited for years and years, through low wages, long days and atrocious conditions. Will the Prime Minister think about introducing legislation to give those workers some real rights?

Gordon Brown: There is a general worry in all parts of the country about vulnerable workers and temporary workers who are not given proper protection. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend will look forward to the draft legislative statement, when I will have something to say about the future of the agency workers directive.

Adam Holloway: Listening to the Prime Minister, one could be forgiven for thinking that we are living in some sort of utopia. Without giving us another boring history lesson, will he tell us whether he has made any mistakes recently?

Gordon Brown: I did say about the 10p that we should have done things better. I made that clear at the time, but what I am not going to do is make the mistakes that the Conservative party made: 15 per cent. interest rates, inflation at 10 per cent., 3 million unemployed and record repossessions. We will not go back to that.

Paddy Tipping: The east midlands regional spatial strategy, which will be published next month, will contain proposals for more that 60,000 houses in Greater Nottinghamshire. Will the Prime Minister ensure that development takes place on brownfield sites before greenfield sites and that a high proportion of the new homes go to hard-working families through social housing?

Gordon Brown: The vast majority of housing built in the past few years has been built on brownfield land, and that is how we intend to continue. At the same time, we want to see affordable housingthat is, housing that will help people to reach the first rung of the housing ladder. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that the proposals that we have put forward in the public spending review are to build substantial numbers of affordable houses in his area and elsewhere, including housing to rent, over the next few years. I hope that he will welcome the announcements that will be made later today about more funds for housing.

Nicholas Winterton: The UK motorist is the most highly taxed in the world. Will the Prime Minister listen to the motorists of this country? In many areas, particularly rural areas including those in my constituency, Macclesfield there is little, if any, public transport and a motor vehicle is essential. Will he review the proposals contained in the Budget dramatically to increase vehicle excise duty, which is unfair and penalises rural areas?

Gordon Brown: I take seriously the needs of motorists in this country. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the Budget proposals, he will see that the majority of motorists benefit or pay no more in vehicle excise duty as a result. He should look at what the chairman of the Conservative transport group, Steve Norris, said. He said that under the Tories
	you will pay more in green taxes. You will, for example, see the reintroduction of a fuel duty escalator.
	The hon. Gentleman should be talking to his Conservative colleagues about the mistakes that they are making.

Clive Betts: First, may I welcome the Government's announcement this week of a review of the services for social care for the elderly and disabled? The all-party local government group is conducting its own inquiry into services for the elderly. Two things are emerging from that. First, there should be a basic citizens' entitlement for the elderly to receive social care. Secondly, when the elderly receive social care they should be treated as individuals with their own personal budgets so that they can make their own choices about their lives. Will my right hon. Friend take account of those two principles when coming to the conclusions on his own review?

Gordon Brown: That is precisely what the debate is about. When I launched the debate on social care on Monday, I was able to say that we will face rising demands from a rising population of elderly and rising aspirations, too, on the part of elderly people who want better choices and better opportunities in old age to make the right choices for themselves. We expect more than 1.7 million more people to have a need for care and support over the next 20 years and that is why the review should take place. I hope that it will be possible to get consensus on future funding and my hon. Friend should also note that we will publish a programme for carers in the next few weeks to back up everything that we are doing on social care.

Stephen O'Brien: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is visiting Crewe and Nantwich in the next seven days?

Gordon Brown: No, I cannot.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Nigel Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will not take any lessons from the people who created two recessions, with 3 million people unemployed, and who gave us 15 per cent. mortgage rates, slashed public services, doubled national debt and trebled the number of children in poverty? Stick to prudence, not empty promises.

Gordon Brown: That is what the debate in this country is now about. When we debated Northern Rock, we were prepared to intervene; the Conservatives backed away from it. When we debate how we can help people who are hard-pressed with their fuel bills, we are prepared to give more money to people, with 22 million people benefiting yesterday; we still do not have an answer from the Conservative party. That is what people will remember about the Conservatives: they are the 3 million unemployed party, they are the 15 per cent. interest rate party, and they are the party of record mortgage repossessions. The country is not going to forget.

Richard Younger-Ross: When the Prime Minister's predecessor, Tony Blair, met the Dalai Lama, he met him in Downing street. When his predecessor, John Major, met the Dalai Lama, he met him in Downing street. Will the Prime Minister confirm that when he meets the Dalai Lama, he will do so in Downing street?

Gordon Brown: What matters is not in what part of Westminster we meet, but what issues to do with the future of Tibet are discussed. I am meeting the Dalai Lama with the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am also attending, at Lambeth palace, a conference of faith groups involving the Dalai Lama, and I can tell the House that all issues of substance relating to our views on what is happening in Tibet will be discussed and on the table. We will be pressing the Dalai Lama to join us in facilitating negotiations between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans. That is the important way forward, and it is issues of substance that matter in this.

Barry Gardiner: What message does the Prime Minister have for the thousands of young people who are sitting GCSEs this week? Will he join me in congratulating teachers in my constituency, where the percentage of students achieving five A* to C grades has risen from 44 to 74 per cent. under this Government?

Gordon Brown: This is another exampleI applaud my hon. Friend for pushing the issueof the progress that is being made in education in this country. Let me just say that the proposals that take us forward for the next year are: education until 18, opposed by the Conservatives; educational maintenance allowances expanded, opposed by the Conservative party; and expansion of the school building programme, from which the Conservatives want to take money. If we want investment in education, it can happen only under a Labour Government.

Greg Hands: Our new London Mayor is off to a courageous start. After only nine days in office, he is already taking on the scourge of youth crime, he is scrapping  The Londoner newspaper and planting 10,000 trees, and getting alcohol off our buses and tubes. The Prime Minister talks about couragehe has even written a book about itbut when will he pluck up the courage to call Boris in person and congratulate him on taking office?

Gordon Brown: When the Mayor of London came to the House of Commons last week, I did congratulate him, but I also said that he would be judged by his record. He has got to show that he can expand transport, expand the service of policing, and do something about affordable housing in London. That is what he will be judged on.

Rosie Cooper: Free national bus travel for older people was greatly appreciated by my constituents. However, they were less delighted when they were told by West Lancashire district council that if they used that free bus service, they would no longer be able to have free local rail travel, unlike people in the nearby local authorities of Merseyside and Manchester. What can the Prime Minister do to ensure that when the Government give, Tory local authorities do not take away?

Gordon Brown: I applaud my hon. Friend's campaign on behalf of the elderly people of her constituency, on that issue and in so many other areas. I can confirm that West Lancashire was allocated a grant of almost 250,000 to pay for the new all-England concession for transport. That represents an increase of more than 20 per cent. on what was previously available and spent on concessionary travel. I am confident that that is sufficient to meet its needs, and that is why the local authority should give pensioners the travel that they want.

Richard Bacon: Which country or countries blocked a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Burma, and what diplomatic pressure are we applying on them?

Gordon Brown: We are applying a great deal of pressure, and I think it would be in our interest to apply that pressure rather than to name names at present. If I may say so, the pressure on those countries continues. That is why I have called on the Secretary-General of the UN to hold an emergency summit. The way forward is an emergency summit, hopefully held almost immediately. That will get the international community organised so that we can get supplies to Burma. We will not rest in our determination to get a concerted international response, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support that.

Dawn Butler: My constituency, Brent, South, has been described as many things, but one of the most offensive is being described as broken. My community and families in Brent are not broken. In 2003 the Government introduced double maternity pay and pioneering paternity leave. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now time to review these measures?

Gordon Brown: I hope that over the course of the Parliament we can move forward with our plans on maternity pay and maternity rights, and I hope that all parties in the House will come to the view that paternity leave was also a good thing. It is unfortunate that although the Conservatives present themselves as a family-friendly party, they voted against the extension of maternity leave, they opposed paternity leave, and they even opposed the right to flexible working. That is not a family-friendly party.

Draft Legislative Programme

Gordon Brown: Building a more prosperous Britain and a fairer Britain is the purpose of the draft legislative programme that is published today for debate in the House and in the country. In this statement I will focus both on immediate action that the Government are taking to help steer the economy safely through the current global economic problems, and on the changes, including a new welfare reform Bill and a new education and skills Bill, that are needed to make Britain a fairer, more prosperous society and to meet the challenges of the future.
	Our immediate priority for the coming Session, at a time when food and fuel prices are rising and mortgages are more difficult to obtain, is to help family finances. In the next few weeks we will set out the elements of our economic plan as we steer our economy safely through the global downturn, the credit crunch and international oil and food price rises. Legislation on the economy in the Queen's Speech will include a banking Bill so that Britain underpins its banking system with the best protection for depositors.
	In addition to action that we will take on fuel bills, to help small firm finance, and internationally on oil prices and food pricesand the benefit that we gain in stability from three-year public sector pay deals that now cover 1.5 million workersmy right hon. Friend the Housing Minister is today announcing a 200 million fund, re-allocating money to purchase unsold new homes and then rent them to social tenants or make them available on a shared ownership basis; 100 million pounds for shared equity schemes to allow more first-time buyers to purchase newly built homes on the open market; and for the first time an offer of shared equity housing open to applications from all first-time buyers, subject to a household income limit.
	The Queen's Speech will also introduce a savings Bill to help not only home ownership but wealth ownership generally, giving 8 million people on low incomes access to a national savings scheme, with each pound saved matched by a contribution from the Government. We will look at whether further action on housing is required in light of the study by the Office of Fair Trading into the sale and leaseback market and the rise in second charge mortgages to ensure that, as should happen, customers are treated fairly.
	With a second public sector efficiency review under way, we are setting the objective of value for money and greater efficiency in public administration, as we move to achieve the lowest civil service numbers since 1945.
	Advancing our enterprise agenda, the Government will also consult on the idea of regulatory budgets, for the first time giving Departments that seek new regulation a strict annual limit on what they can impose.
	As well as taking decisive action to help families and business weather the current economic storms, the Government have a duty to equip this country to meet the challenges of the future, with welfare and education reform to help people rise as far as their talents can take them, and in the education, health, policing and community empowerment Bills that we are announcing today, a commitment to new standards of excellence in services and to the transfer of more power and resources to parents, patients and citizensmeasures which, alongside our constitutional renewal Bill, reshape for a new age the respective roles and responsibilities of citizen, community and Government.
	In the next two decades the size of the world economy will double and 1 billion new skilled or professional jobs will be created. The new legislation that we propose today is founded on the new economic truth that the countries that have the best skills and the best education systems will reap the greatest rewards. So attaining the highest standards of education as we expand opportunity is the theme of the new education Bill for schools and lifelong learning.
	It is unfair to consign any child to a poor school or even one that is coasting along without the ambition to do better. So after legislation this year for education to 18, there will be a second education Bill to support our plan to ensure that, by 2011, no school is underperforming: the first independent qualifications system to guarantee to parents the highest standards; more power for parents to receive regular information on their children's progress; and, as we expand academies, reform to strengthen the accountability of schools to parents, giving them a bigger say on how to raise standards and whether new schools are needed in an area.
	It is unfair, and a threat to our country's future prosperity, that many qualified young people are still denied access to an apprenticeship. By deciding to legislate for the first time in the Queen's Speech for the statutory right of every suitably qualified young person to obtain an apprenticeship, we expect the numbers of people starting an apprenticeship to rise by 2011 to more than 200,000three times as many as in 1997.
	Every adult should have the right to a second chance in educationto have the chance to make the most of their potential. It is not only a threat to prosperity but unfair that adultsin work or looking for workare denied the opportunity to get the training they need to advance their careers, or even the time needed to do a course. So my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills is proposing today for the first time a major change in workplace rights that will benefit both employees and employersgiving every worker the right to request time off to train. And we will offer every adult a personal skills account so that they can access the training they need, with resources tailored to the individual [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is bad manners [ Interruption. ] Order. These are things that I cannot do right away. I know about the statement's availability. The Prime Minister is delivering a statement to the House [ Interruption. ] Order. I am looking into the matter and I ask hon. Members to let me deal with it. While the Prime Minister is addressing the House, hon. Members should allow him to be heard. Some hon. Members are complaining that the statement is not available, and I am dealing with that matter. The Opposition often tell me that Ministers should come before the House: the Prime Minister is here and I do not want any interruptions. It is unfair.

Gordon Brown: Leaving the unemployed without the skills they need to obtain work is costly for our prosperity and unfair to both benefit claimants and those who pay taxes. So as part of the next stage of welfare reform, emphasising obligations as well as rights, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will legislate to impose a duty on the unemployed to have their skills needs assessed and to acquire skills. We will also consult on further radical reforms to ensure that no-one with the ability to work is trapped on benefits for life. Those who can work should work, so new and existing incapacity benefit claimants will be required to go through a medical assessment and will be given a personalised programme to help them back into work.
	Fair treatment also means respecting people's need for flexible arrangements to care for their children, especially as evidence now shows that flexible work is no obstacle to business successfairness and efficiency advancing together. So my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform will announce tomorrow that we will take forward the recommendations of the Walsh report to extend the right to flexible working to parents of older children. We will consult on the details of implementation, with the aim of introducing new rights from next April.
	Since last year we have secured in the NHS cleaner hospitals, better access to GPs, and progress on waiting times. It is right, as we celebrate 60 years of the NHS, to introduce a new NHS reform Bill to continue the change and renewal of the health service so as to equip it to offer a higher standard of care; to focus it on prevention as well as treatment; and to make it more accountable to local people, giving patients real power and control over the service they receive.
	We will establish a constitution for the NHS that sets out what patients can expect to get from the health service, including entitlements to minimum standards of access, quality and safety. For the first time, payments to NHS hospitals will be adjusted according to patient satisfaction and health outcomesdeepening our commitment to a patient-focused NHS.
	In the same way as we are tackling underperforming schools, we will take new powers, as part of a comprehensive NHS performance regime, to ensure that no health care provider falls below the minimum standards that we require. Just as we will consult in education on giving more rights to parents, we will bring forward radical proposals in health to put more power in the hands of patients, including new rights to information about their care, to control their own personal budgets and to have more say over the decisions of their local primary care trust.
	Just as we will give both parents and patients more control, so we will give social housing tenants more saygreater choice over where they live and new rights to independent information on landlords' performance. We will look at ways of rewarding good tenants and hold to account those who do not meet their responsibilities, as we crack down further on antisocial behaviour in our estates.
	Protecting the safety of the British people is paramount for every Government. Since 1997, we have increased the numbers of policemen and women; introduced new community support officers and new powers for police and the courts to target antisocial behaviour, burglary, car crime and street crime; and taken action against terrorism. Our aim is not just a reduction in crime, but that people feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. One way forward, as with education and health, is to empower citizens, giving them more direct say on how crime is tackled in their areas, so the Home Secretary will bring forward proposals for directly elected representatives to give local people more control over policing priorities and responsiveness.
	We will legislate so that neighbourhood police teams have to meet tougher national standards to ensure the high visibility and responsiveness of local police and community support officers. Legislation will also give the victims of crime more legal rights, including protection for vulnerable victims and witnesses of gun and gang-related crime during investigations and trials. The Home Secretary will set out shortly further detailed plans to allow police time that is now spent on paperwork to be spent on the beat, liberating the police from needless red tape, and she will announce new measures to improve police performance.
	Organised crime, particularly in the areas where there are serious problems with drugs and illegal immigration, must be dealt with severely. It is right to close every loophole to prevent criminals from retaining the proceeds of their crimes, so the policing and crime reduction Bill will legislate to speed up the recovery and seizure of assets obtained through criminal acts.
	If our crime policy is to punish and prevent, our migration policy is to ensure for Britain the benefits that migration brings while managing it securely and ensuring that expectations for newcomers are clear. We have already introduced the Australian points system to ensure that only those who contribute can come to Britain, and we have integrated the vital work of the Border and Immigration Agency, Customs and UK Visas into a single border agency. After a consultation that finished this week, the Home Secretary will legislate to put in place our new and tougher test for permanent residence or British citizenship. The requirements in law will be that newcomers learn English, play by the rules and show they are making an economic contribution to the UK. Only full citizens will have full access to benefits or social housing, and newcomers will be required to pay into a migration impact fund to help local communities deal with changes in population.
	We will also take new powers in legislation to enhance airport security and protect against terrorist acts at sea.
	We will take further steps in the next Session of Parliament to safeguard and enhance our heritage and our environment. For the first time in 30 years there will be legislation to increase protection of our historic sites and buildings. This will include reforms to the planning system to improve the protection of old buildings, and new rules to make it an offence to deal in cultural property illegally exported from occupied territory.
	We will consult in draft on the legislation necessary to implement the recommendations of the Pitt review into the 2007 floods, and so better protect vulnerable communities in the future.
	We have already legislated this Session to put a legal limit on Britain's carbon emissionsthe first country in the world to do soand we will bring forward a Bill in the next Session to protect our seas and shores. There will be new powers to designate marine conservation zones and to create a path around the whole of the English coastline, with public access for walking and other recreational activities.
	Last year, we announced new measures, including restricting the royal prerogative, to make the Government more accountable to Parliament, and those will be taken forward in a constitutional renewal Bill. But we will go further and consult on a major shift of power directly to citizens themselves. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will set out proposals, to be taken forward through a new community empowerment Bill, to give people greater power to influence local decisionslocal spending decisions, local council agendas, the use of local assetsthat affect them as citizens.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice will publish a White Paper on reform of the House of Lords and details of our proposals to reform the system of party finance and expenditure. He will also bring forward proposals for consultation on a Bill of rights and responsibilities.
	We are committed to both flexibility and fairness in the workplace and we will do nothing that jeopardises jobs and businesses taking on new workers, but most people agree that it is not fair that, even after months in a job, agency workers can currently be paid less than the staff they work alongside, and as a result permanent staff can feel they are being unfairly undercut. Therefore, the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform plans to bring forward legislationsubject to an agreement between employers and employees, and in Europethat will for the first time ensure new rules for fair treatment of agency workers in Britain.
	Discrimination anywhere is unacceptable and a new equality Bill will compel public bodies to take seriously the requirements of both their work force and the communities they serve, sending a clear message that in the 21st century prejudice in Britain is no longer acceptable.
	Therefore, we will have a banking Bill to support financial stability; an education Bill to ensure that every school is a good school; an NHS Bill to improve the health service and to entrench patients' rights; an immigration Bill so that people earn their citizenship; a welfare reform Bill to help people into work; and reforms on agency workers, on skills and on flexible working. Those are the priorities, and I commend the statement to the House.

David Cameron: We had a discussion during Prime Minister's questions about whether the Prime Minister could be straight with people. It turns out that the Government cannot even make a statement in a straight way, distributing it to the press before they give it to Members of Parliament.
	There are lots and lots of things in the statement that we welcome, not least because we proposed them. We welcome the constitution for the NHS. That is an idea that we set out last June. We welcome the extension of the right to flexible working. We announced that in September 2006. We welcome the independent exam regulator. I raised that and proposed it in 2005. The list is enormous. A simple saving scheme was in the 2005 Tory manifesto. We proposed regulatory budgets in 2006I think. The list is almost as long as the draft Queen's Speech, so I hope that, when the Prime Minister gets up, we will get a bit of gratitude for all that. He cannot say that we have not got any substance when he has taken it all and put it in his Queen's Speech.
	We particularly welcome what the Prime Minister had to say about shared equity. Those proposals are being pioneered in record numbers by the record amount of Conservative councils up and down the country. Most of all, we welcome the welfare reforms. The Prime Minister has stuffed No. 10 full of spin doctors and pollsters. Why not just get a shorthand typist and send them to the Tory conference to take it down? It would save a lot of money.
	Now we hear that the Prime Minister is going to accept our proposals for elected officials to make the police accountable. That is the proposal that his Government called completely daft. I think that they meant completely draft. It is a great idea that officials who hold office and wield power should be elected. Who knowsit might catch on and one day we might have an elected Prime Minister. The grin is back.
	Look at the Bills that are to clear up the mess of the last decade. Do we not have a banking Bill because the regulatory system that the Prime Minister created 10 years ago failed on its first test with Northern Rock? Do we not have an NHS Bill because a decade after the Government promised to end mixed-sex wards they are still there, the promise has been broken and people are not getting the care they need? Are we not getting an immigration Bill because the Government completely failed to prepare for or even anticipate the scale of immigration that is taking place? Are we not having a welfare Bill because, after 15 years of global growth, Britain has 5 million people on out-of-work benefits?
	Let us be frank about what today's statement adds up to. It is another re-launch, and the Prime Minister has had to bring it forward. The Government are still struggling to implement [Interruption.] Hang on a second; Members will have their turn. The Prime Minister is still struggling to implement last year's Queen Speech. There is no solution to 42 days; last year's Budget is still being rewritten; badly drafted Bills are stuck in the House of Lordsno wonder he wants to talk about next year's Queen's Speech. However, the draft Queen's Speech has nothing to do with the country's long-term needs and everything to do with the Prime Minister's short-term political survival.
	The draft Queen's Speech reveals the Prime Minister's deeper problem. On the progressive goals that we need to achieve in this countryunblocking social mobility, beating poverty, taking people out of persistent deprivationhis ideas have run out of steam. He no longer has the solutions. Instead of more redistribution, more tax credits, more top-down state control, we need a Government who tackle the underlying causes of poverty, fight family breakdown, break the monopoly of state education and can work with the voluntary sector. Is not it the case that he cannot do that and we can?
	One positive aspect of the Prime Minister's statement is the claim that he wants personalised public services. If that is true, why does he not accept our plan to bust open the state monopoly in education and allow new schools to open? Why does he not scrap the restrictions on the right to buy and accept our plans to extend it to all council and housing association tenants? He does not believe in giving people genuine choice and control over their lives. If he did, he would give the country a referendum on the EU constitution. Watching the Prime Minister talk about personal choice, giving people more freedom and letting them have more control over their lives is completely unconvincing. The supreme leader just does not do freedom. Will not people rightly conclude that, if they want a Government who give people more freedom, choice and competition, why not vote for the real thing?
	Is not there a negative side to the Prime Minister's comments? It is his usual trick of political positioning and setting the false dividing lines, with which he is obsessed. When will he learn that the political positioning and fake dividing lines have landed him in the mess that he is in today? He faces defeat on banging people up for 42 days without charge. He proposed that not because it is the right thing to do, but because he wanted to try to look tough. The shambles of yesterday occurred because the Budget was not about helping the poorest people but about posing as a tax cutter. That is why he had to execute such a big U-turn.
	We will fight tooth and nail against one part of the Queen's Speech: the Prime Minister's plan to enforce polyclinics and close GP surgeries up and down the country, although it will be noted that there will be none in his constituency. We will continue to fight the Government's real agenda of closing post offices, thus tearing the heart out of communities; releasing prisoners, thus making our streets more dangerous; and taxing businesses into moving abroad.
	After yesterday's U-turn, today's draft Queen's Speech is simply another attempt to save the Prime Minister's skin. It will not wash. People can see a Governmentnot only the Prime Ministerwho have run out of road, run out of money and run out of ideas. Seven months ago, the Prime Minister cancelled the election because, he said, he needed more time to set out his vision. Now we can see that there is no vision, so when can we get on and have the election?
	This morning, we read about a new plan from this great man of substanceto appear on a new version of The Apprentice. I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in her place, blushing slightly. I am not making it up, but she said that it would be The Apprentice meets Maria, meets Strictly Come Dancing. I expect that there is probably a role for the Liberal shadow Chancellor.
	I have a better idea for the Prime Minister. Why not take part in a reality show that involves the whole country? It is called the general election. Would not that give everyone the chance to square up to him and say, You're fired? Is not that the only way to get a Government who genuinely give people control over their lives, strengthen our families and our society, and make our country safer and greener?

Gordon Brown: If we had taken the Conservative party's advice, none of this year's major Bills would have got through. We would not have decisions on energy, planning, airports and many major issues that face the country, and we would not have the ID cards that we need for the security of our people. If we had taken the Conservative party's advice, we would have put all the tax cuts into stamp duty on shares and inheritance tax instead of helping 22 million people, as we have done today.
	The Conservative party should face up to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that he supports flexible working, but he voted against it. He says that he supports families, but he voted against longer maternity and paternity leave. He says that he supports banking regulation, but a Conservative party report called for even more deregulation. He says that he cares about people on low incomes, but he opposed the minimum wage, tax credits and the new deal. The Conservatives now say that they want to help children, but they also want to cut Sure Start. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is tough on crime, but he also wanted to hug a hoodie. He claims that he is tough on immigration, but he does not want ID cards for foreign nationals. He says that he is interested in the environment and cycles to work, but the chauffeur follows behind. The Conservative party is so full of contradictions that it is unable to put forward a policy for the future of this country.
	Today, we have presented our proposals for the economyand there was nothing from the Conservative party. We presented our proposals for greater opportunity for young peoplethe Conservatives opposed the last education Bill and I presume that they will oppose the next one. We presented proposals to improve rights for parents, patients and citizensthe Conservative view on that is not clear.
	When we talk about police officers, the Conservative proposal is to elect one chief police officer in every areajust one person. Our proposal is for directly elected individuals from their communities. That is a far better way of local democracy working. The right hon. Gentleman should read our proposals before criticising them. He is a salesman without substance.

Nicholas Clegg: I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement [Interruption.] Well, it was only a few minutes before Prime Minister's questions, but let us be thankful for small mercies.
	It has been a desperate week for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, he brought forward the Budget by a full 10 months and borrowed 2.7 billion to dig himself out of a political hole over the 10p tax rate, yet still managed to leave a million people worse off. Today, he has brought forward the draft Queen's Speech, producing it a full two months before he did it last year. I have no idea what we can expect him to bring forward nextChristmas, perhaps. How desperate is he?
	We already knew that the Conservatives would say anything to get elected, but it is now clear that the Prime Minister will try anything to cling to power. He has scraped the legislative barrel to save himself. The long legislative list is a rag-bag of proposals in which he either addresses things that the Government said were not a problem, such as the economy, or tries to turn around problems that the Government created, such as over-centralisation.
	The Prime Minister established the banking regulation system. Is he not embarrassed to come here today and tell us that it does not work and that we need a new one? Is he not even more embarrassed to announce a 200 million fund to purchase unsold houses, when, by my reckoning, that will cover only 1,000 homesfar too little to make a genuine impression on the deep crisis in the housing market? He allowed irresponsible lending to over-inflate the housing market. Is he not embarrassed to admit that it needs propping up because of him?
	Is the Prime Minister not embarrassed that the statement contains nothingnot a wordon the growing crisis of fuel poverty in this country, which will soon have 5.5 million people in fuel poverty?
	How could the Prime Minister tell us, with a straight face, that he wants to empower people and communities? Let us remember that he was the man who turned Britain's doctors and nurses into bean counters and took away our freedom of speech and right to protest. The new Labour Government have made more than 3,000 new things illegal since 1997. By my reckoning, that is two new illegal offences for every day that Parliament has sat since new Labour came to power. They capped communities' council tax and imposed mass centralised school testing. Most shamefully, they took money from the pockets of the poorest workers. Since 1997, the Government have passed 65 home affairs Bills. Today, we are considering six more. If legislation made us safer, we would have been the safest nation on the face of the planet years ago. The NHSshoved from pillar to postwill get a 14th reform Bill in 10 years.
	If the Prime Minister wants to devolve power, why is he introducing so much more central legislation? Another stir of the legislative pot will not save the Prime Minister. If he wants to devolve power and protect us from the economic downturn, he will have to do much better.

Gordon Brown: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would say that he supported what we propose on the environment, on giving more power to local people, on the community empowerment Bill, on the Constitutional Renewal Bill and on all the changes that we are making that make for a better relationship between individual citizens, communities and the Government. I thought that the Liberal party was supportive of those proposals, and I hope that when it looks at them in more detail, it will support them.
	The gist of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was about the economy. It is right to protect banking depositors; it is right to take new action to do so, given what has happened over the last few months. I do not think that it is a criticism of previous Governments that everywhere in the world people are looking at strengthening financial services regulation after what has happened in the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States of America.
	The right hon. Gentleman talks about fuel poverty, but we are the party that introduced the winter allowance; the Conservative party opposed it. We are the party that has raised the winter allowance in the last few weeks to help people who are in difficulty as a result of fuel bills. We are the Government who have negotiated a new deal with the oil, energy and utility companies so that 100 million, and 150 million in future years, will go to help people on low incomes pay their fuel bills. The right hon. Gentleman should be praising us for the action that we are taking to try to protect people against the difficulties of rising fuel costs.
	As for housing, the important thing, which the Conservative party forgot when it was in power, is that we can keep mortgage rates low. Some 1.8 million more people have homes as a result of a Labour Government, and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise the fact that that was possible only because we have kept mortgage rates low. Mortgage rates are half what they were under the Conservative Government. It is because we have run a strong economy, with economic stability over the past 11 years, that while other countries have had recessionsand the Government of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) had two recessionswe are in a position to continue to grow as an economy.
	We will take every action necessary to help home owners and others who face difficulties as a result of the world economic downturn. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) should be supporting us, not criticising us.

Nick Raynsford: I thank my right hon. Friend and congratulate him on his comments, particularly those on the housing market, and on his recognition of the importance of action. Although I welcome the proposals to introduce the new scheme to assist shared ownership, I put it to him that the scale of the problem, in terms of the withdrawal of lending facilities and the collapse of confidence among many house builders, is such that more intervention will almost certainly be required if we are to restore prudent lending at a level that will ensure that the market recovers. I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything in the coming weeks to achieve that, and to avoid the situation deteriorating to a point at which there would be parallels with the dreadful experience that we all saw when the Conservative party was in power.

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend is an expert on the housing market, and I am grateful for his remarks. The 50 billion that was injected as liquidity into the economy in the past few weeks is a means by which we can restore the flow of funds from banks and building societies to home owners. We will not hesitate to take the necessary action to deal with that.
	However, I would disagree with my right hon. Friend on interest rates. At the moment, they are at 5 per cent.; in 1992-93, when the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) was advising the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were at 15 per cent. That was a shameful episode, from which the country took years to recover. We are not going to get into that position again.

William Cash: This morning, the Prime Minister spoke about his defence of the Union. He is now faced with a referendum in Scotland. I remind him that in 1997, during the Scottish referendum Bill, he did not vote, or abstained, on a three-line Whip when I tabled an amendment calling for a United Kingdom referendum. About 400 of his colleagues voted against my amendment. Does he now agree that there should be a referendum of the United Kingdom with respect to the Scottish question?

Gordon Brown: There was no support for the hon. Gentleman's amendment in 1997, as he confirmed by having 400 people vote against it. But I have to tell him that no legislation is coming forward for a referendum in Scotland now or in the immediate future. It is not coming forward in Westminster and it is not coming forward in Holyrood in the immediate future, as far as I can see. So the hon. Gentleman's question is posed on a misunderstanding: there is no proposal for a referendum now or in the immediate future.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the advance procedure in which we are engaged today. I will not dwell on the questions that some of us might have about the worth and workability of an immigration impact fund. However, when it comes to the new Bill to protect our seas and shores, will the Prime Minister's Government use the British-Irish Council to work with all the other Administrations on these islands so that all the Governments and Chambers with responsibility for a common marine environment adopt a compatible, co-ordinated and coherent approach?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, that will form a discussion in the British-Irish Council. The Minister responsible for that, the Secretary of State for Wales, will take that forward.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I say on behalf of my party and the Scottish National party that we were rather disappointed not to have been given an advance copy of the statement? If the Prime Minister seriously wants to engage, providing advance copies is a prerequisite.
	Several things in the Prime Minister's statement will no doubt be useful when we look at the detail. However, given the global downturn and the credit crunch, will he consider some form of equitable lending Bill that outlaws illegal lending? While I am on the subject of poverty, may I ask him again to reconsider the civil service job cuts in Wales, the vast bulk of which will fall within objective 1 areas, undermining all the good work that has been done there to try to raise gross domestic product?

Gordon Brown: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not receive the statement in advance, and I shall look into that; I shall also look into what happened to prevent Members from having the statement early enough for them to be able to look at it.
	I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about lending and what he wants to be done, and I shall consider what he has said. As for civil service jobs, we have to recognise that new technology is making possible major changes in how occupations are constructed. That was the purpose of the Gershon report, and now a second Gershon report is to be done. We have to catch up with the changes in technology that are taking place, and I believe that we can make major changes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that although jobs are being lost in certain areas of the civil service in Wales, overall a substantial number of additional people are in work as a result of the other policies of the Labour Government.

Stephen Ladyman: When banks get into trouble, directors and shareholders tend to make decisions in their own interests, rather than those of depositors. Will my right hon. Friend say whether the new banking Bill will include a power, similar to that in the United States, that will allow an independent authority to override the shareholders and insist that decisions are made in the interests of the people who have their money in the bank?

Gordon Brown: I shall certainly look at what my hon. Friend says and pass his comments on to the Chancellor. The purpose of that particular clause of the banking Bill is to make sure that there is adequate and full financial protection for depositors in the event of a banking crisis or failure. As we dealt with Northern Rock, we found that more had to be done to make sure that depositors were properly protected. We raised the ceiling of protection and at the same time gave wider guarantees, and the purpose of the Bill is to put those into legislation.

George Young: At the beginning of his statement, the Prime Minister made it clear that the draft legislative programme would be debated in the House and the country, and I welcome that. However, will he reflect on whether it then makes sense in November, when we have the Queen's Speech proper, to spend another five days debating a legislative programme that we will already have debated? Would it not make more sense to reinstate into Government time debates that we used to have on public expenditure and the economy, which have mysteriously disappeared from the programme?

Gordon Brown: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. Last year and this year we published the Government's legislative programme in advance, and that is unique. We are allowing for an early debate about its merits so that a full consultation can take place. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, that raises questions about the nature of the Queen's Speech debates that follow.
	As far as debates on the economy are concerned, we welcome those at any time, because the choice is between a policy that has worked for 11 years and one that failed when it was last tried.

Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend's statement on assistance for people buying houses through shared equity schemes and for people to enter the housing market is welcome. However, I stress to him that even with that assistance, house buying is out of the question for many of my constituents in London. If we are to provide affordable housing for young families who are trying to set up their own homes to bring up their children, we will need more affordable rented accommodation. Will he bear that in mind?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has brought this issue to my attention on many occasions. One of the purposes of the 200 million fund is to purchase unsold new homes and then rent them to social tenants, which would, in the short term at least, increase the amount of rented accommodation. He is absolutely right that our plans for increasing affordable housing over the next few years involve a substantial increase in rented homes, and that is the right thing to do.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement. I am sure that everyone would wish to see a successful policy implemented that will steer us through the current global economic crisis. However, examination of the detail does not seem to live up to the headline that he has claimed. On the housing market, does he agree that the funding he announced will result in about 1,000 new houses being bought and about 2,000 people being helped through shared equity schemes? Will he explain how, given that it takes three or four years to turn round failing schools, he can claim that by 2011 there will be no failing schools in this country?

Gordon Brown: It is an ambitious programme to turn round all underperforming schools, but we are determined to do it. I do not think that a child who is not benefiting from a good school should have to wait longer than is necessary to get the best schooling possible. We have set an ambitious target, and it is one that we want to achieve. I hope that there will be support for that in all parts of the House.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's comments on housing, the two additional proposals about extra resources for a purchasing scheme and a shared equity scheme are on top of many other initiatives that we have announced before. An open market homebuy scheme and a second shared equity scheme are already allowing thousands of people to take the first step on the housing ladder. Those policies are on top of the huge amount of money that is spent on social housing by the Government as part of the public expenditure plans. If we are going to deal with the problems of the housing market, it is important that interest rates remain low. What really did the damage in the early 1990sI know that the Conservatives do not want to hark back to this, because there were 200,000 repossessions [ Interruption. ] I do not think that they have learned from the pastthat is the problem. What really did the damage in the 1990s was that interest rates

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) that he must not heckle the Prime Minister or any other hon. Member who is addressing this House. If he does so, he is defying the Chair, and that is a very serious matter.

Gordon Brown: It is important that interest rates can stay low, and that demands that we bear down on inflation. Even facing huge increases in world oil prices, as is happening in every country, inflation is currently at 3 per cent., while it is 4 per cent. in the United States and about 3.5 per cent. in the rest of Europe. We will continue to bear down heavily on inflation so that we can keep interest rates low. That is the best thing that we can do to help potential home owners.

Tom Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that my constituents will very much welcome the protection that he is giving to consumers, particularly in his announcements on banking and on fuel bills? On banking, the Government have been supportive, and it is perfectly right that consumers should be protected. The leader of the Liberal Democrats did not seem to hear the part of the statement where my right hon. Friend referred to fuel bills. It is right that he should do so, and may I say that he has the moral authority to ask the energy companies to make their contributionfor example, in terms of their competitiveness and accountability?

Gordon Brown: My right hon. Friend has been a great campaigner on behalf of people who have been affected by poverty. Obviously, high fuel bills are a determinant of poverty and that is why we wanted to increase the winter allowance, which was announced in the Budget, why the low income households deal has been done with the utility companies, and why we will not hesitate to take further action to protect people against high fuel bills. It is in the interests of the country that people are protected at a time when oil prices have trebled.

Paul Rowen: According to the National Audit Office, the chances of an unemployed person getting a job when coming off the jobseeker's allowance programme vary between one in five and one in 40 depending on their age, sex and where they live. What will the new proposals do to help people in my constituency, for example, where we have lost 4,500 jobs in the past five years and unemployment is on the up? What is the Prime Minister going to do to help those people?

Gordon Brown: Employment is still risingthat is why there are 600,000 to 700,000 vacancies in the economy. Our desire is to help people who are unemployed or moving between jobs to fill the vacancies that are available. The hon. Gentleman will know that in his constituency there is still a high number of vacancies, as there is across the region. Through the welfare reform Bill, we want to make it an obligation on people to undergo a skills test and then for them to be advised as to whether they need to acquire further skills, because we know that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy is falling but the number of skilled jobs is rising. We want to help his constituents and all other unemployed constituents to get the skills that they need for the future.

Anne Snelgrove: My right hon. Friend's proposals mean that Swindon will be an even more prosperous community in future. We are a proud industrial town and we have a proud industrial heritage derived from the railways. Would his proposals to protect historic buildings help the mechanics institute in Swindon, which is in private hands, and is a crumbling but beautiful building that we seek to protect? Will he help us by ensuring that people who are private owners of such buildings are included in that protection?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has been most innovative in citing the new Bill as a means by which we might support what is obviously an historic building of great value in her constituency. We will certainly look at what we can do. Swindon is a community that has benefited from the expansion of investment over recent years. That is why there are more people in jobs there than there have been previously, and why people in Swindon will think twice about a Conservative Government who caused so much unemployment.

Peter Lilley: Is the Prime Minister aware that his conversion to Conservative policies would be welcomethere is, after all, more joy in heaven over one sinner that repentsif only he understood them. How does he reconcile his welcome proposal for directly elected representatives to give local people more control over policing priorities and responsiveness with the very next sentence, which proposes statutory, national, top-down legislation defining how police authorities should employ their resources and ensure their visibility and responsiveness? Is not the difference between karaoke Conservatism and the real thing that he can recite the words but he does not know what they mean?

Gordon Brown: It is pretty clear that the right hon. Gentleman has learned nothing from his years in opposition. While it is right that people are elected at a local level to discharge representative functions in their area, it is also right in certain circumstances to set down minimum national standards. I hope that he will continue to support the setting of a minimum national standard in respect of policing as in other matters.

Gordon Prentice: Is the NHS constitution a mission statement or will it give people new rights that can be exercised in the courts?

Gordon Brown: I think that when the NHS constitution is published and subject to debate my hon. Friend will find that it does give patients new rights. I have mentioned access, safety and careclearly, people want those things when they use the national health service. For the further details, he should wait for the statement by the Health Secretary.

John Hayes: Why should we believe the Prime Minister on apprenticeships and lifelong learning given his history? When Chancellor, he predicted that by 2006 there would be an average of 320,000 apprenticeshipsin fact, there were 235,000and on lifelong learning the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education reports this week that in just two years the number of adult learning places has been cut by 1.4 million. Does not the Prime Minister realise that in anticipating the future we do not need a crystal ball when we have his dismal record book?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to point out that apprenticeships were dying out under the previous Conservative Government. There were barely 70,000 in the country when we came to power. If the figure was 235,000 a year or two years' ago, that represents a trebling of apprenticeships under Labour.

Kevan Jones: May I warmly welcome the extension of rights to temporary workers, which adds to the protections offered by the minimum wage, the extension of maternity pay and rights at work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that although that is a priority for this Government, it is something that we would never have seen under a previous Tory Government or see even under a future one?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On all the major advances in rights, including the minimum wage, the social chapter and maternity and paternity pay, we have had very little support from the Conservative party. That is totally in line with the history of the Conservative party that opposed the national health service in the first place.

James Clappison: The Prime Minister has spoken of a migration policy based on an Australian-style points-based system. A fundamental feature of the Australian system is an annual limit on migration. Does he have any such proposals for a limit on migration?

Gordon Brown: I do not think that any party has an annual limit on migration, and no political party has proposed one. We are saying that we reserve the right to set a limit for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, but if skilled workers have a contribution to make to the country, they should be allowed in. Any business that the Conservative party talks toI know that it wants to put a cap on this figure as wellwill tell it that it wants to be able to draw on the skills of the world when it is necessary to do so, and I would have thought that that is the sensible way forward.

Paddy Tipping: Did the Prime Minister share my concern that neither Opposition party leader noted the valuable initiatives in his statement about protecting the natural environment? The marine Bill is much appreciated and widely anticipated. It also contains measures to extend access to the countryside and the coastline, something for which working people have campaigned for 100 years and which a Labour Government have delivered.

Gordon Brown: I was surprised that neither the Conservative nor Liberal party welcomed this [ Interruption. ] The right hon. Member for Witney could not list all the things that we were suggesting. This is an important part of legislation about the environment, and his party says it cares about the environment. Perhaps it should be consistent in its support for the environment.

Point of Order

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During his response to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) accused the Prime Minister of distributing speeches in advance to the Press Gallery. I have seen that practice going on for several years. Could you, Mr. Speaker, clarify the position through your good offices? It is a practice that has grown up over time, and we need some clarification.

Mr. Speaker: I am going to look into the matter, and I will make a statement to the House to see whether we can rectify it.

Management of Dementia in Care Homes

David Taylor: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the prescription of anti-psychotic drugs for people with dementia in care homes; to require the introduction of protocols for the prescribing, monitoring and review of such medication; to make dementia training, including the use of anti-psychotics, mandatory for care home staff; to require care homes to obtain support from specified external services; and for connected purposes.
	One third of all people over 65 will be suffering from dementia when they die. Their condition will touch the lives of millions more families and friends, who will provide care and support to the victims of that cruel and relentless disease. Care homes have a large and increasing amount of responsibility for caring for our population of dementia patients. As the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, of which I am a member, has observed, two thirds of the care home population suffer from a form of dementia. Dementia sufferers in care homes are more likely to be in the advanced stages of the disease.
	Our recent inquiry and report, Always a Last Resort, into the prescription of anti-psychotic drugs to care home residents with dementia reached some startling conclusions that I feel the Government must take into account before publishing their national dementia strategy later this year. I must pay tribute to the Alzheimer's Society for its support and to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) who chaired the inquiry and guided our deliberations with lan and verve. The team also included my hon. Friends the Members for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), as well as Baroness Thomas of Walliswood and Baroness Greengross from the other place.
	The report reached a number of conclusions that informed its five subsequent recommendations to the Government on the issue and my Bill seeks to implement those recommendations. First, we noted the consensus among patient and professional organisations, the regulators and the care home sector that over-prescribing is a massive problem. The evidence testified to the significance of external behavioural symptoms, not only resulting from the condition, but from wider and more complex environmental problems.
	In the awful psychological limbo of dementia, communication with the outside world is unavoidably basic. Too often and too quickly it seems that anti-psychotics are prescribed to manage such behavioural symptoms, banding together types of behaviour that can differ in their seriousness. Witnesses repeatedly stated the importance of not trivialising the challenging types of behaviour demonstrated by care home residents with dementia, such as aggression, which can have serious consequences for the individual and the care home environment. However, in many instances quoted to us, anti-psychotics were prescribed to treat behaviour that is neither distressing nor threatening, such as restlessness or being vocaloften basic expressions of need.
	There is justified concern that care homes resort to the use of anti-psychotics as a response to this behaviour, misinterpreting its cause. A mandatory course of training in caring for dementia patients would enable staff to discriminate better between the types of behaviour exhibited by residents with dementia. Indeed, a lack of dementia care training for staff, high staff turnover and inadequate leadership in a care home setting can partly explain the current excessive and inappropriate use of anti-psychotics.
	With scant time or training to provide alternative treatments, care homes have a default switch to quick, more accessible methods of managing behaviour that is broadly and often inaccurately, categorised as difficult. As the Royal College of Nursing points out, inappropriate prescribing of anti-psychotics can be reduced by ensuring an appropriate environment, activities, and the correct staffing levels and skill mix. It clearly follows that care homes themselves need better support from external services to improve the quality of care provided to residents with dementia. That would reduce the widespread use of anti-psychotic drugs through cutting the number of new prescriptions and ensuring that residents with dementia have access to the sort of prescribing process that we expect from our own GP.
	As Help the Aged states, care staff are often in the best position to recognise when a treatment is not working for a patient, so we need to develop the link between care home staff and local GP surgeries. That demonstrates with particular clarity the benefits to be gained from training care home staff in dementia treatment. Not only would staff be able to recognise and treat appropriately behaviour in dementia patients that might currently be referred to GPs or treated with anti-psychotics, but alternative treatments that have genuine benefit to dementia patients would also be used more effectively and successfully.
	Our report found that people with dementia and their carers are being excluded from decision making, a direct contradiction of the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The present system permits care homes and some external providers to prescribe without fully assessing and discussing the individual's situation, including the risks and benefits of the drugsa situation that would be both unthinkable and illegal anywhere else in the health or social care system. Of course, there are some circumstances in which the use of drugs is appropriate to treat dementia sufferers. Nevertheless, the use of anti-psychotics should always be the course of last resortas in the title of our reporttaken only in times of severe distress or critical need.
	Anti-psychotics are powerful drugs that GPs do not prescribe lightly. They can have destructive side effects, such as increased risk of stroke. The joint National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and Social Care Institute for Excellence 2007 guidelines are recognised as both effective and appropriate guidance, but there is significant evidence to show that they are not working in practice, with obstacles to implementation. As one would anticipate from excessive use of and over-reliance on anti-psychotics, inappropriate prescribing is widespread in the care home sector. It is estimated that these drugs are wrongly prescribed in 70 per cent. of casesan incredible figure.
	Even dementia patients with very mild behavioural symptoms are being prescribed lengthy courses of anti-psychotics, with no regular checks to establish whether the patient is deriving benefit from such a serious course of treatment. Urgent and immediate action is needed to correct that bad practice through the implementation of existing guidance. It is of concern to me, however, that the Commission for Social Care Inspection washed its hands of that scandal as being outside their remit. It is important to acknowledge, as our report does, that more appropriate ways of dealing with challenging behaviour exist and have been deployed to good effect in some care homes. The use of individually tailored care plans and the promotion of care home based activities, for example, should be used in every care home, as every care home will have dementia patients among its residents.
	Essentially, the national dementia strategy for England must have plans to reduce the present number of prescriptions, and there are five steps that the Government can take to end the chemical cosh approach to elderly care home residents with dementia, which are the requirements spelled out in my Bill: dementia training to be mandatory for all care home staff; care homes to be properly supported by external services, including GPs, community psychiatric nurses, psychologists and psychiatrists, with regular visits to the care home and its residents; the use of anti-psychotics for people with dementia must be included in Mental Capacity Act training for all care home staff; protocols for the prescribing, monitoring and review of anti-psychotic medication for people with dementia must be introduced; and finally, the regulation and audit of anti-psychotic drugs for people with dementia should be compulsory.
	It is now almost five years since June 2003, when I introduced a related piece of legislationmy ten-minute Bill advocating the establishment of an older people's rights commissioner. That has been overtaken by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, whose overarching equality scheme has emerged in the last few weeks. I hope that the EHRC will give high priority to the frail elderly in our population, who far too often have no one to speak for them, who are being disgracefully and unfairly treated when at their most vulnerable with some type of dementia.
	We cannot continue to speed the decline of dementia patients through poor management with expensive and often inappropriate anti-psychotic drugs in care homes. We know that the number of people with dementia in the United Kingdom is expected to reach 1 million in 2025. Last year, care homes spent 60 million on anti-psychotic drugs, even though they were not appropriate forms of treatment in most cases.
	As the dementia population continues to grow, we must equip care home staff with the skills necessary to identify different forms of behaviour among dementia residents. To do that, we should ensure that the funds saved from accurate and appropriate drug prescription are ploughed back into the continuing care scheme, in order to provide individualised care for all care home residents, particularly those in need of the most care, and understanding and support.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who has responsibility for care services, has said that he wants to bring dementia out of the shadows. I hope that the Bill and our report will pierce the Stygian gloom and illuminate one of the bleakest and darkest recesses of that dire and degenerative chamber that faces one in three of us in this House. There is much good practice out there in dealing with the behavioural symptoms of dementia in a non-pharmacological manner. We need to spread and entrench that in all care home settings. That is currently happening at far too slow a rate and demands urgent action now.
	The 1,000 or more people in each of our constituencies with dementia750,000 people nationallydeserve better. My Bill, like our all-party group report, aims to flag up some suggestions on the way ahead for the crucial national dementia strategy in a few months. In the interests of those hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens, I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by David Taylor, Jeremy Wright, Mr. Eric Illsley, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Mrs. Betty Williams, Mr. Paul Truswell, Mr. Gordon Prentice, John Bercow, Lynne Jones, Bob Russell, Mr. David Drew and Colin Burgon.

Management of Dementia in Care Homes

David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the prescription of anti-psychotic drugs for people with dementia in care homes; to require the introduction of protocols for the prescribing, monitoring and review of such medication; to make dementia training, including the use of anti-psychotics, mandatory for care home staff; to require care homes to obtain support from specified external services; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 109].

Opposition Day
	  
	[12th Allotted Day]

Burma

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move,
	That this House is gravely concerned by the immense suffering and damage caused in Burma by Cyclone Nargis; notes that 200,000 people may have died and that two million people lack access to healthcare, clean water and sanitation, food and shelter; salutes the work of the Department for International Development's staff and British NGOs, including Save the Children and Merlin, in responding to the disaster; is further deeply concerned by the restrictions placed on the international humanitarian relief effort by the government of Burma; asserts that the international relief effort is motivated solely by humanitarian concerns; calls on the government of Burma immediately to grant unrestricted access for the international humanitarian effort, including the delivery of aid supplies, and the admittance and free movement of aid workers; further calls on the UN Secretary General to visit Burma immediately to make clear the united desire of the international community to secure access for the international relief effort; further calls on China, India, Thailand and other countries with influence over the Burmese regime to make every possible effort to persuade the Burmese government to allow the international relief effort full access; prefers that humanitarian action should be supported by the government of Burma and believes that this approach is more likely to be successful but concludes that the international community has a responsibility to protect the Burmese people and should consider all options for getting help to those who need it, including using direct aid drops.
	As the House debates the situation in Burma today, we are equally aware of the terrible earthquake and awful loss of life in China, particularly among children. However, it is hard not to draw comparisons between the responses of the Governments of China and Burma to the terrible disasters that have hit their countries. The Chinese Prime Minister led the humanitarian relief effort to the earthquake in his country. The full power of the state has been used to rescue and protect the citizens of China, but the position in Burma could not be more different. The regime has not only proved unable to handle the challenges it faces, but actively turned its back on helping its own citizens. Indeed, it has willingly and systematically blocked an unprecedented global humanitarian coalitiona coalition motivated not by politics, but by a desire to help those who are suffering.
	Britain's citizens, through the Disasters Emergency Committee, have raised some 6 million to help save lives. I welcome the funds released in the name of the British people by the Department for International Development. I hope that the Secretary of State will update the House on how much of the 5 million he pledged last week has been released to organisations on the ground and on how it is being spent.
	Members of the Burmese diaspora throughout the world are responding by sending money to members of their extended families in Burma. Earlier this week, the American Department of Treasury eased financial sanctions against Burma to let individuals send money to friends and family there. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that everything possible is being done to assist members of the Burmese community in Europe who want to send money home? Could the European Union do more on that? Will he update the House on the aims of the forthcoming visit of the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, Louis Michel, who is due in Burma for talks tomorrow?
	Night is now falling in Burma. The situation in the Irrawaddy delta is almost unimaginable. Hundreds of thousands of people will spend another night without shelter. We hear reports of massive makeshift camps for survivors, where tens of thousands of people gather on high ground, waiting in the hope of assistance. Today, 11 days after Cyclone Nargis hit, hundreds of thousands of people lack the basic necessities for human survivalfood, clean drinking water, shelter and any form of basic medicineand another cyclone is feared in the area.
	What we are seeing in Burma is a double tragedy. The cyclone was obviously a natural disaster for which no one can be held responsible. However, we are now seeing a second tragedy unfold, as relief is barely trickling through to those who desperately need it. I know that the skilled staff of the Department for International Development are doing all that they can. Their disaster assessment team arrived in Rangoon earlier this week. We look forward to hearing from the Secretary of State on what it found. The team is led by Rurik Marsden, the head of DFID in Burma, and Britain's outstanding and experienced ambassador, Mark Canning.
	British NGOs and their local partners are doing extraordinary work. Save the Children, whose efforts I saw for myself during my visit to Burma last year, has some 500 staff and 35 offices throughout the country. It is led by Andrew Kirkwood and has managed to reach 100,000 people. The British charity Merlin and others are doing all that they can.
	There has been some late, limited improvement in access to aid. An American plane was given permission to land earlier this week and two United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees truck convoys have managed to cross the border from Thailand. I am advised that by 11 o'clock today seven or eight planes carrying aid had landed in Rangoon, among which I understand is one British plane. The World Food Programme reported some easing of access to incoming supplies. I am informed that there has been some progress with the granting of visas. However, that limited progress is nowhere near enough. The Burmese Government continue to cut their people off from the lifelines being offered them. The World Food Programme estimates that it has been able to set up only 10 per cent. of the logistics required for the response and has provided only 20 per cent. of the required food. There is no expectation of a visa waiver.

Julian Lewis: Although this was not made entirely clear when the subject came up at Prime Minister's Question Time, my understanding is that before the tragedy in China, China and Russia were the two countries at the United Nations standing in the way of UN action to force the Burmese Government to give better access. In the light of the second tragedythe one that has hit Chinais there any prospect of a renewed effort to mobilise the United Nations being more successful?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend's understanding is the same as mine. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will want to update the House on the continuing discussions that are being held under the United Kingdom's chairmanship of the Security Council in New York.

John Battle: The hon. Gentleman did not extend or develop his point about the parallels between the tragedy in China and the one in Burma. The Chinese have demonstrated that they understand the need for experts in humanitarian aid to be on the ground immediately, in the place where they are needed. The key issue is not aid, but aid plus people. In the light of their experience, perhaps the Chinese could be encouraged to tell the Burmese to allow the experts in.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman, who knows what he is talking about in this matter, makes an extremely good point. I hope that it will be heard clearly by those making Britain's contribution to the discussions in New York.
	I was talking about the situation on the ground, and my understanding is that the authorities still insist that NGO workers should not operate outside Rangoon. Indeed, we have heard today that those restrictions are reported to have been tightened, and foreign NGO workers in the delta will now be required to remove themselves within 48 hours. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to comment on that. If he, understandably, does not have full details of the issue, I hope that he will urgently seek to find out what is happening.
	Over the past year, the Burmese Government have sought further to weaken and downgrade United Nations structures in Burma, not least by kicking out Charles Petrie, the able UN head in the country, and by denying visas to key UN personnel. Meanwhile, the price of rice, which was already high due to world conditions, has rocketed, and the price of fuel has increased by 500 per cent., further hindering the relief effort.
	The view of the House on the nature of the Burmese Government is well known, but that is unquestionably a matter for another day. Now is not the time to pursue that point. Our position bears repeating. Our motives for wanting to get aid through to those who most need it are not political. The sole aim of the international humanitarian workers on the ground is to save lives. The international relief effort is motivated by simple, common humanity. Our clear preference is for aid to be delivered with the co-operation and active supportor at least the passive acquiescenceof the Burmese Government. It is right that, to date, most of the world's efforts have been focused on securing that outcome.
	The international community has learned from bitter experience what has to be done in these circumstances. The UN has conducted a comprehensive needs assessment to identify what materials and skills are most needed, and the world is responding generously. On this point, the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), should be given credit for instigating the central emergency response fund at the UN. The British taxpayer should also be credited for being the largest contributor to it. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much money has been drawn down from it so far to assist in this emergency?
	Unfettered access to the people who need help is now required. The UN Secretary-General has expressed his frustration at the slow pace of the aid effort. As we made clear last week in the statement to the House, we believe that the Secretary-General should travel to Rangoon today to see the situation for himself and to remonstrate with the military junta and demand action on behalf of the international community. I was pleased to hear, during Prime Minister's questions today, that the Government have adopted that idea.
	Everyone knows that time is running out for the Burmese people, so we now need to consider every available option to get help to those who most need it. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said earlier this week that only a defined and limited amount of time should be allowed to pass before the international community takes direct action to reach the people whom humanity demands we assist. If it becomes clear that the Burmese Government remain unco-operative despite continued, concerted pressure from the international community, while people are dying from disease and exposure, the moral imperative to save lives will be overwhelming. The test of our policy must simply be: what will help the people of Burma the most?
	The Conservatives are well aware of the complexities and difficulties inherent in attempts to provide aid from the air. Reaching the most vulnerable, ensuring that the aid gets to the people who need it the most and is not seized by the strongest or by the military, and simply finding a suitable place to drop the aid are all very real challenges. However, if we face a choice between getting aid through, even in this imperfect way, and aid not getting through at all to the people who desperately need it and who will die without it, we will have a clear moral imperative to act.

Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he is making a very serious point. I have not met any representative of an NGO who takes the view that he is expressing. The NGOs realise that the best way to deliver humanitarian aid is by land and by water. Has he really thought through the implications for the personnel who would be expected to deliver the aid if, at this comparatively early stagedespite the seriousness of the problemwe were to involve ourselves in air drops?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the difficulties that would accompany such action, but he must bear it in mind that we are not at an early stage. Without any aid or support at all, hundreds of thousands of people in Burma could die. Although the aid agencies and NGOs are sceptical about the case that I am putting, it must nevertheless be considered. If we cannot get aid through by any other means, we should get it through directly.

Mike Gapes: Following on from the previous intervention, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that certain things cannot be dropped from the air? Safe water systems and other equipment would be badly damaged if they were dropped in on a pallet. The real solution would still require people on the ground who were able to get the resources in by other means.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, to some extent. We are not suggesting dropping water from the air; no one has suggested that. Water purification tablets and equipment could be dropped in that way, however. There are many people stranded on the ground who are starving and who are going to die, and we need to reach them. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) referred to access by sea, and we should also consider that method. The UN has called for a sea corridor to be established to assist the aid effort. Will the Secretary of State update us on what progress has been made in that regard?

Tony Baldry: Are we not in danger of getting into a false argument on this matter? I was in Ethiopia during the famine in 1985. Because of the desperate situation, it was necessary to deliver a lot of the aid by air. RAF Hercules planes, working with Russian cargo freighters, did fantastic work getting food and other supplies into difficult parts of Ethiopia. That was an example of an airlift being used to the best advantage. This is not a false dichotomy. Given the scale of the disaster in Burma, we are almost certainly going to need air support at some stage. My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that there comes a time at which the international community has to say, We have a responsibility to intervene if the Burmese Government are not willing to look after their own people.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I seek to carry the House with me when I say that no one believes that delivering aid directly, whether by sea or by air, is easy. However, the House must consider what we should do if we cannot get aid through in any other way.

Douglas Alexander: I am keen for the hon. Gentleman to clarify the position of his Front Bench on this issue. My understanding is that the Leader of the Opposition set yesterday as the deadline when contemplating air drops during an interview on The World at One, but that position now seems to be shifting, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that they should be contemplated for the future. Who is correct: the Front-Bench spokesman or the leader of his party?

Andrew Mitchell: I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman not to abuse his position by trying to make party political points on this matter. I heard the interview that my right hon. Friend gave yesterday, and the point that he made is precisely the point that I am making. If, after a period of timewhich my right hon. Friend rightly argued should be definedthe aid is still not getting through, the international community must address the issue of getting it through directly.

Nigel Evans: Does it not illustrate just how callous the Burmese regime are when the small trickle of aid that has finally got through is halted by the Burmese junta and repackaged to make it look as though it has come from the junta itself? Surely the important thing is that we get the food and aid through to the people who need it most as quickly as possible.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is entirely right.
	I was referring to the issue of access by sea and to the UN sea corridor, which has been called for to assist the aid effort. I invited the Secretary of State to update us on any progress that has been made in that regard. The House would also like to hear what steps are being taken in consultation with Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, for Britain to join up with the French vessels that are currently approaching Burma. What plans do the Government have to use HMS Westminster in the relief effort? Will the Secretary of State set out exactly what supplies the ship is carrying and what plans have been made to use them?
	In 2006, amidst much self-congratulation, the leaders of the international community in New York embraced a responsibility to protect people whose Governments failed to do so. The UN Security Council referred to the intentional denial of humanitarian assistance. The responsibility to protect focuses on genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
	Lawyers might say that the situation in Burma does not currently fit the technical definition that triggers the responsibility to protect. Conservative Members say that it should and we say further that the international community, through the UN, must revisit this failure to protect as part of the reform of the international architecture so that regimes cannot obstruct and frustrate with impunity the common humanitarian responsibility of the international community. For now, there is one thing and only one thing that mattersthe saving of lives, which will surely be lost in their thousands unless international aid reaches those in such peril in Burma tonight.

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move, To leave out from House to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	notes with horror the devastating impact of Cyclone Nargis upon the people of Burma; recognises the vast scale of humanitarian assistance needed urgently to prevent further loss of life; is appalled at the unacceptably slow pace at which the Burmese authorities have so far allowed in international expertise for the relief effort, and at their lack of capacity to distribute aid to the affected areas; calls upon the Burmese authorities to allow immediate and unfettered access for both the delivery of aid and for its distribution inside Burma; strongly welcomes the UK Government's initial 5 million pledge to the relief effort for emergency items; strongly supports the UK Government's exchanges with key international partners in order to bring about a concerted international effort for access for humanitarian assistance; in this regard, welcomes the visit to countries in the region by Ministers from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; urges countries in the region to increase their efforts to persuade the Burmese authorities to allow in unfettered international assistance and to ramp up the delivery of aid; and strongly supports continued efforts of the United Nations to secure access and ensure aid is delivered to those in need.
	Let me begin by associating myself with the statement of sympathy offered by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) to the people of China in light of the terrible earthquake that has afflicted the country. I will address the hon. Gentleman's points in the course of my remarks, but let me start by updating the House on the latest assessment of the situation in the affected areas of Burma. Then I will share with the House the efforts we are making to provide humanitarian relief, before detailing our political and diplomatic efforts to secure further access for aid and, indeed, for humanitarian workers.
	As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield described, the situation in the disaster zone of the Irrawaddy delta is rapidly deterioratinglargely, and tragically, because of the inadequacy of the Burmese regime's response. People are dying now not because of a natural disaster, but because a disaster has been turned into a man-made catastrophe. The state media in Burma are reporting that some 28,500 people have died, 1,400 are injured and more than 33,000 are missing. However, we believe the true figures to be far greater.
	I spoke only this morning to Rurik Marsden, the head of the Rangoon office of the Department for International Development, and some agencies in the field are now estimating that the number of dead and missing is rising to more than 200,000 people. At least 1.5 million people are in need of assistance, and for 300,000 of those the need is desperately urgent.
	The likelihood of widespread infectious disease as a consequence is increasing fast. The initial risks are diarrhoea and water-borne disease. One aid agency to which we have spoken reports that one fifth of the children it has reached already have diarrhoea. In time, there will be an increased risk of the spread of malaria due to the large amounts of standing water following the cyclone.
	There have been some signs in recent days that the amount of aid reaching Burma is increasing. As of Monday, just 35 flights had arrived in the course of the preceding week. In contrast, two US military flights arrived in Rangoon this morning, along with eight aid flights, and we expect a total of 23 flights to arrive in the course of today. One of the eight aid flights to arrive this morning was carrying UK assistance36 tonnes of plastic sheeting, which is enough to provide shelter for many thousands of people. That shipment was consigned directly to the UN World Food Programmenot, of course, to the Government of Burmaand distribution within Burma will now be taken forward.
	Four further UK aid flights are expected to fly out this week, with shelter and blankets as well as flat-bottomed boats to help those most in need. We will also supply experts, both in Bangkok and in Rangoon, to ensure the smooth running of relief flights into Rangoon, and I have also requested the Ministry of Defence to direct HMS Westminster to the region to assist in any appropriate humanitarian response. That request has been approved, and HMS Westminster is now on its way to international waters off the coast of Burma.

Jeremy Wright: The Secretary of State will recognise that much of what he is describing is precisely reflected in the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). Given that the right hon. Gentleman has moved an amendment to the motion, from which we can take it that the Government will be voting against the Opposition motion, will he explain in the course of his remarks precisely what it is in our motion that he disagrees with?

Douglas Alexander: As I made clear earlier before I embarked on my substantive speech, there is some confusion about the Conservative position. The Conservative party leader declared that there was a deadline at the close of play yesterday, whereas that deadline is not set out in the Conservative motion; indeed, its existence appears to have been contradicted by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. In such circumstances, I do not think it unreasonable for the Government to table an amendment, which I hope will secure the support of all hon. Members.

Nigel Evans: I too am a little confused about what it is in the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and supported by Conservative Members that the Government disagree withother than the fact that our motion
	salutes the work of the Department for International Development's staff and British NGOs,
	whereas the Government's amendment replaces that with praise for
	Ministers from the Department for International Development.

Douglas Alexander: The confusion is among Front-Bench Conservative Members. Only this afternoon, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield singularly failed to back his own leader's call for setting a deadline, ending yesterday, for the Burmese regime. Perhaps Conservative Front Benchers will clarify that in the concluding speeches. The responsibility for the confusion rests entirely with them.

Andrew Mitchell: The Secretary of State offers the House a most unusual [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) says, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is pathetic. What the motion says is very clear. It does not deal with the issues that the Secretary of State has raised. As my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) both made clear from the Back Benches, the motion we tabled is perfectly reasonable, so will the Secretary of State identify which aspects of its wording he disagrees with in order to explain why he is whipping his party to vote against it this afternoon?

Douglas Alexander: I have been clear that the confusion rests with Conservative Members; they failed to back up their own leader who in the course of an interview yesterdayas confirmed by the Conservative Front Bencherstalked about yesterday as a deadline. That position appears to have been resiled from by Conservative Front-Bench Members today. If that is a matter of dispute within their ranks, it is for them to defend and explain it.

Tony Baldry: rose

Daniel Kawczynski: rose

Douglas Alexander: I have been generous in giving way and I am keen to make a little progress [Interruption.] Before abuse is hurled across the House, it may be appropriate for the Conservatives to deal with the confusion [Interruption.] With the greatest respect [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many sedentary interruptions. This is an extremely important matter and many people will be watching the House today, so we really should address the central issue before us.

Douglas Alexander: I would be glad to return to the central issue as you direct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is the complex picture

Several hon. Members: rose

Douglas Alexander: I am keen to make a little progress, but I will be happy to give way again in due course.
	A complex picture is emerging in relation to access for international agencies. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield asked about reports emerging today of further constraints on access for international NGO workers within the delta region. I can confirm that we have received indications that that direction has been offered within Burma by the Burmese regime. Similar directions offered have been circumvented on the ground in recent days, but only time will tell whether this will result in the removal of international aid workers. I sincerely hope not.
	From my discussions with British NGOs working on the ground, it is clear that a number of them have been able to secure access to the affected areas recently, and I hope that that will continue. This is obviously a worrying development and we will monitor it closely. In the course of the morning, I met British NGOs working on the ground and they offered different accounts of the level of access that they were able to secure to affected areas.
	I am sure that there is consensus among Members across the House in commending the considerable efforts of UN agencies, international NGOs and British agencies to deliver aid to those in need, often in extremely difficult circumstances. The World Food Programme reports that it has dispatched 426 tonnes of food to affected areas and distributed enough food to reach nearly 74,000 people. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies now has two water purification units in Rangoon and expects two more by the end of the week. When all four are operating at full capacity, they will provide minimum daily water rations for up to 200,000 people.

Pete Wishart: I am still looking at the motion and the amendment. In view of the wording, can the Secretary of State offer any reasons why my hon. Friends and I should support the Government's amendment, as opposed to the Conservative motion? I cannot see any difference.

Douglas Alexander: At the hon. Gentleman's request I shall return to the subject of the Conservatives' lack of clarification of their policy on responsibility to protect, given that divergent opinions have now been offered by their Front-Bench spokesmanthe hon. Member for Sutton Coldfieldand the leader of the Conservative party.

Simon Burns: The right hon. Gentleman is beginning to get into the Prime Minister's mode of failing to answer a specific question. May I make the question a little more simple? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me which part of the Opposition motion he has a problem with, and which part he will urge his colleagues to vote against?

Douglas Alexander: The Opposition motion refers to the responsibility to protect, which reflects an enduring apparent inconsistency on the part of the Conservative party. In recent days the party leader has said that a deadline should be set for the regimethe deadline was yesterday, and it has now passedbut today, when the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman had an opportunity to suggest when such a deadline should be reached, he was unable to confirm that he adhered to a position that involves very serious consequences in relation to whether or not there should be immediate air drops.

Mike Gapes: I have read both the Opposition motion and the Government amendment. The phrase responsibility to protect appears in the motion, but not in the amendment. Let me try to clarify the position. Gareth Evans, the former Australian Foreign Minister, has written that dangers will be posed in the international community if we use the term responsibility to protect so loosely that it undermines the necessity of such action when it is sanctioned by the United Nations in the context of crimes against humanity, such as genocide. Is that the reason for the Government's amendment?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend brings his considerable experience in the Foreign Affairs Committee to bear on these discussions of international relations. I think that it would send the wrong message to the regime in Burma if we suggested the endorsement of a deadline which has already passed, and which is the subject of confusion in the Conservative party.
	I am certainly happy to stand by the terms of the Government amendment, which I think offers a judicious way forward. It recognises the need for continued international pressure, pays due acknowledgement to the work that is under way, and makes clear our continued determination to secure access by all appropriate means.

Andrew Mitchell: When the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) quoted Mr. Gareth Evans, he should not have quoted selectively. Mr. Evans wrote in his article:
	But as the days go by, with relief efforts impossibly hindered, only a trickle of the government's own aid getting through, and the prospect of an enormously greater death toll looming acutely with just a few more days, they
	that is, the arguments that the hon. Gentleman says Mr. Evans supports
	are sounding less compelling, and at least need revisiting.
	That is the case that Conservative Members have made.
	As for the responsibility to protect, I urge the Secretary of State to return to a bipartisan approach. The issue is currently being debated. The British ambassador to the United Nations has said that he does not think the responsibility to protect is relevant, while the Foreign Secretary said in an interview last night that it should indeed be considered. Rather than making cheap political points, the right hon. Gentleman should focus on the needs of the Burmese people at the moment.

Douglas Alexander: I think the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. It is for him to account for the disparity between the position that he set out today and what was said by his party leader on The World at One. These are serious issues, which is why I am keen for an approach to be adopted that is clearly set out to the regime in Burma, and why it is important not to retain the kind of inconsistency that still haunts the Conservative party. Has the deadline for responsibility to protect passed, or has it not?

Tom Clarke: I regret that the House appears to have been invited to choose between a motion and an amendment. We can make up our minds later on how that came about, but may I suggest to my right hon. Friend, who has put a specific question, that the non-governmental organisations surely have a say in the matter? The Opposition motion ends with the words using direct aid drops. As my right hon. Friend may be aware, Jane Cocking of Oxfam has said:
	The biggest risk is that aid air drops will be a distraction from what is really needed.
	She has also referred to the huge importance of diplomatic efforts. Does that not demonstrate that my right hon. Friend is being entirely responsible?

Douglas Alexander: I recognise the significant contribution that can be made by NGOs, given both their knowledge of what is happening on the ground and their well-established understanding of the need to deliver aid in an effective way. That is why I agreed with what the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's Questions today. Of course we take no option off the table, and of course we continue our discussions with the Security Council. That hardly comes as a revelation: it was said by the Foreign Secretary last night, and by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box today. It is fundamentally different from suggesting that a deadline has already passed and that air drops should therefore follow immediately.
	I think it right to make it clear that there continues to be pressure from the international community, that we continue to examine all options with our partners in the Security Council and the international community, and that in the meantime we are unstinting in our efforts to convey aid to the people who require it. That is the Government's approach, and the approach of the amendment.

John Battle: The Government should be commended for moving quickly and offering material aid, but as the Select Committee on International Development made plain in its report on humanitarian responses, we cannot focus solely on such aid. We must focus on getting people to Burma to ensure that aid is delivered properly. One of the problems with air drops in such circumstances is that the aid would be dropped on water rather than land, which was not the case in Ethiopia. We should concentrate on access, and the need to persuade the Burmese to admit independent experts from the United Nations and the NGOs to ensure that aid reaches people on the ground, because no one is in a position to deal with that now. That should be the focus of the efforts of Members throughout the House.

Douglas Alexander: I entirely agree, which is why I am not convinced of the case that a deadline of yesterday should have been set. We are seeing a significant increase in the number of flights. As I have said, there have been more than 30 over the last week, and 27 are due to enter Rangoon today. That is why I feel that the sensible approach is to continue the dialogue with the British NGOsI met representatives only this morningand to continue to make all possible representations both at the United Nations and internationally, which we are doing. At the same time, we should proceed with the work of our assessment teams on the ground.
	Now is the time to take a considered approach, and to make what I accept are difficult judgments on the most effective way of securing aid on the ground. It is for others to account for their own position, but I stand by the terms of our amendment.

Tony Baldry: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Douglas Alexander: I have been generous in giving way, and I want to make a little more progress before taking further interventions.
	As Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said on Monday, it is clearly still the case that not nearly enough aid or aid workers are reaching those in need. The United Nations staff on the ground are grievously overstretched, and the Burmese Government continue to deny visas to foreign aid workers. As a result, the United Nations has been able to reach fewer than a third of the total number of people at risk, estimated by the United Nations secretariat to be some 270,000.
	Since the onset of the tragedy, the British Government have been clear that the Burmese regime must allow international agencies unfettered access and freedom to travel to the worst-affected areas. Let me describe the political and diplomatic actions that we have been taking in pursuit of that objective. As I told the House last week, we have already committed 5 million for humanitarian relief, and we stand ready to provide more assistance in due course. Our ambassador in Burma, Mark Canningto whom I spoke this morningis raising the question of access directly with the Burmese authorities, and I have personally raised my concerns with the Burmese ambassador here in London. However, as chair of the United Nations Security Council, we are also pressing for unfettered humanitarian access. The UN Secretary-General is galvanising the international response, and for some days we have been encouraging him to visit the region as soon as possible. That is not a new position of the British Government; indeed, I argued for it several days ago. The Prime Minister spoke to the Secretary-General yesterday, and pressed him to call a high-level meeting to discuss the crisis. I understand that the SecretaryGeneral is to convene a meeting later today.
	We and others, including Burma's regional friends such as China, India and Thailand, all agree that the Burmese Government must open up to international assistance. I have spoken to the Chinese ambassador in London, and our ambassador in Beijing is lobbying the Chinese Government directly. As the most important friends of the Burmese regime, they must ensure that the aid begins to flow and the experts are allowed to start their work. The Foreign Secretary is in dialogue with his Chinese, Thai, Indonesian, Malaysian, Australian, American and French counterparts. Lord Malloch-Brown and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik), are today on the ground in Bangkok, both assessing the co-ordination of the regional effort and meeting the Thai Prime Minister to press the case for action.
	Over the weekend, I requested the European Union presidency and Commission to convene a meeting to galvanise the EU's efforts in response to the crisis. This British initiative met with support, and yesterday I was in Brussels to meet European Development Ministers. The conclusion of that meeting reinforced the statements made by the United Nations in support of increasing access, and the European Development Commissioner, Louis Michel, is now travelling to the region to press the views expressed by the Council yesterday. In recent days, I have also been in touch with John Holmes, the UN emergency co-ordinator, Josette Sheeran, the executive director of the World Food Programme, and Henrietta Fore, director of USAID.
	As has been made clear in this debateand as was raised in Prime Minister's questionssome are advocating direct action and the application of the responsibility to protect doctrine. As I have stated, we rule nothing out, and we must do all we can to resolve this crisis. We continue to argue vigorously in New York for UN Security Council engagement, and we are supporting the continued efforts of the Secretary-General to resolve this crisis.

Tony Baldry: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, because this is an important issue. Britain chairs the Security Council. This emerging norm of the responsibility to protect has been developing for a long time within the UN. If we were to listen to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, our understanding would be that the Government are deliberately not including this concept of the responsibility to protect in their amendment because they are in some way resiling from it. If that is the case, as we are chairing the Security Council, it is a very serious issue indeed. Will the Secretary of State therefore please explain what is the Government's understanding of the concept of the responsibility to protect?

Douglas Alexander: I was endeavouring to do so when that intervention was made. Let me seek to make a little more progress on the matter.
	There are very strong differences of view within the Security Council on whether it should play any role in this crisis, as there is an issue of national sovereignty in the minds of some of its members. There is also division within the Security Council on the applicability of the responsibility to protect doctrine to the present crisis. We have made it clearthe Prime Minister did so at the Dispatch Box todaythat we will continue to consider all options, including using military assets to help deliver aid, as was the case in the tsunami response, and retaining the option of invoking the responsibility to protect. That is not a straightforward or easy option, and it could delay the delivery of aid, but if the Burmese regime continues to fail to help its own people, we will consider all options, including the options I have set out.

Mike Gapes: The UN 2005 millennium summit resolution defines narrowly the meaning of the responsibility to protect, and it does not include general humanitarian issues and other non-specific issues. Is it likely that the Security Council would agree to such action when there is already difficulty over the interpretation of the current narrow definition? Also, will the British Government in any circumstances supportor opposeunilateral action by a group of countries, which seems to be what is implied by the Opposition motion?

Douglas Alexander: First, given my hon. Friend's knowledge of, and expertise in, foreign affairs, he will be aware that the Canadian commission that preceded the establishment of the responsibility to protect doctrine anticipated that there could be circumstances following a natural disaster where that doctrine might be applicable. There will, of course, be legal arguments and debate about such points, but some authorities have suggested the potential applicability of the responsibility to protect.
	As I have made clear, there are at root two legal issues in the context of the discussions that have taken place in the Security Council on this issue. The first of those is whether the Security Council itself is the appropriate body to discuss this matter, because some have argued that it is not, given that this is essentially a matter that comes under the national sovereignty of Burma, while others have argued that there are broader concerns in terms of regional international security which make the Security Council an appropriate forum in which to discuss it. There has also been dispute and division within the Security Council on the applicability of the responsibility to protect. Notwithstanding that, given our position as current chair of the Security Council, we continue to engage actively with our partners on the Security Council and we seek to find consensus and a way forward. It is for the Opposition to explain the terms of their motion, but we are clear that, while we rule no option out, we will continue to pursue this matter within the Security Council and actively engage in discussions with our colleagues.
	In addition to the political and diplomatic hurdles that I have described, it is also right to assess the effectiveness of any direct action in getting assistance to the people who need it. This morning, I met representatives of British NGOs working in the field, and received no request for immediate air drops. That reflects some of the sentiments in discussions that have taken place, and some of the difficulties in relation to air dropswhich were, indeed, anticipated by those on the Opposition Front Bench. Air drops have proved successful in the past where it is possible to have an identified drop zone and aid workers are waiting to distribute the aid to the most vulnerable within the communities. If such aid workers are absent, not having been deployed to the drop zone, the aid can end up in the hands of the strongest rather than the weakest. Secondly, one would need to identify suitable drop zones in an area of the Irrawaddy delta that is now largely under water as a consequence of the cyclone, with large areas of standing water.
	Therefore, as I have said, this is not an easy or straightforward option, and while we take no option off the table, it is interesting that the organisations that are currently making efforts to get aid to those who need it most are making no request to the British Government for such drops at present. Indeed, in recent days the World Food Programme has said that aid drops could be dangerous and counter-productive without the proper ground support available, and Jane Cocking, humanitarian director of Oxfamwith which I understand the Leader of the Opposition was in touch only yesterdayhas said:
	The biggest risk is that aid air drops will be a distraction from what is really neededa highly effective aid operation on the ground.
	Let me be clear, however, that we will consider all options in getting aid to those affected, and continue to apply the highest diplomatic effort to ensure that international aid and aid experts are allowed to get to where they are most needed.
	The UN Secretary-General has said that we are at a critical point in the response to this grave humanitarian crisis. It is, indeed, the case that the lives of many thousands depend now on the actions not only of the Burmese regime but of the international community. There is no difference in the world's willingness to help, compared with either the tsunami or the Pakistan earthquake. It is the military regime's chilling indifference to the plight of the Burmese people that has been laid bare. Yet we must balance our outrage at the Burmese junta's response so far with a clear-headed sense of what will actually make a difference on the ground. While we are not ruling out any action, we are working every available diplomatic channel to provide both unfettered access for international aid and aid workers, and an international community that speaks with one voiceand says that we must work together to avert any further human catastrophe following this natural disaster. I commend our amendment to the House.

Michael Moore: It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State. Like him, I join the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), and others across the Chamber in expressing sympathy for the people who have lost family members and friends and who even at this moment have no idea what their future will be after this unimaginable disaster of the past 10 days.
	I welcome the statement that was part of the Secretary of State's speech today, and acknowledge his intention to come back to the House and make a statement in his own time at some point this week. The official Opposition have however provided us with a good opportunity to air all the different issues and to examine thoroughly what has been going on and what can still go on. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State's decision to move this motion.
	On the vexed issue of the motion, I have listened carefully to the contributions from both Front Benches and I wish to make it clear that we will support the motion. It is a shame that the Secretary of State cannot bring himself and his colleagues to support it. I recognise that they have some concerns about the language, but surely what matters is the message that this House sends to the outside world, rather than a dispute about who said what and when, and what represents a particular point of view. In the past few minutes, the Secretary of State has said that we rule nothing out, so I do not understand why the Government cannot accept a motion containing the words
	should consider all options for getting help to those who need it, including using direct aid drops.
	The Secretary of State has helpfully updated us, although starkly so, about the situation on the groundit is under water, tragicallyin Burma. Some 200,000 people may have lost their lives, and that is a staggering figureit represents nearly every person who lives in my part of the south of Scotlandand 1.5 million people are homeless or in need of emergency assistance, 300,000 or 400,000 desperately so.
	As the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State said, there are some urgent priorities: clean water, food, shelter and medical assistance. The World Food Programme estimated the other day that it was able to deliver only about one fifth of the 375 tonnes of food required each day and that instead of two to three aircraft landing each day, one needed to land every 45 minutes or so.
	We should be encouraged, to a certain degree, by what the Secretary of State just told us. He said that about 25 to 30 aircraft are landing today. We must hope that that level will be maintained and that the aid can be used immediately and responsibly. It should not, as others have highlighted, be hijacked by the generals and their acolytes, and then be rebadged or simply not distributed.
	Food prices in the region were already climbing astronomicallythey have increased by 30 per cent. this year aloneand this situation can only worsen that trend. Let us not forget Burma's tragic recent history. The Saffron revolution of only a few months ago started on the back of fuel price increases and other problems in the country, as well as the fundamental flaws in the regime. The country was desperate before these past few days.
	Dr. Gareth Price and Tamara Lynch of Chatham HouseI declare an interest as, like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I am a member of its councilhave stated:
	It is pretty clear that the government in Burma focuses more on remaining in power (and self-aggrandisement) than on responsiveness to people's needs.
	Those two people do not have an axe to grind; they are not party politicians or non-governmental organisations, but individual experts making a damning indictment. Their assessment highlights the fact that despite the arrangements made by neighbouring countries in the region facing the same risk of cyclones, Burma has had no cyclone warning system. It also has no system of building cyclone-safe houses. Although such houses have not protected Bangladesh in every last respect, they have brought about a major improvement there in recent years. Even the Burmese militarythe much-vaunted 500,000 people who are the regime's elitehas been forced to feed off the land; vegetables are being grown beside airstrips and there are chicken coops behind the barracks.
	Burma is a country with a twisted set of priorities that has never got things right, and in this moment of crisis, we have not seen a proper response. Indeed, we have seen the absolute obscenity of proceeding with a referendum on a constitution to which nobody can give any credenceit is simply designed to entrench the power of the military. Above all, we have seen the disgraceful and unbelievable response to the cyclone: the refusal of all outside assistance. That assistance ought to be making the difference in saving lives that are at risk.
	At this time, we learn that the generals' preoccupation is that somehow outside assistance would strike at the heart of the regime's legitimacy and the country's national sovereignty. For that reason, the generals feel that they must reject the assistance, but I suggest that the regime has no legitimacy to lose. The very nature of the military dictatorship goes against every standard and norm that we would support. The reaction to the democracy protests both a few months ago and over many years, the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi and the regime's complete failure to prepare for events such as these are sadly predictable. It is not outsiders who are undermining the regime's legitimacy; the regime itself is doing so.
	That whole debate has enlivened the broader one that we are having internationallywe have also heard it here this afternoonabout the responsibility to protect. We are arguing over how formal that responsibility is and what it has meant in the past few years, but surely that fancy new phrase simply formalises the basic humanitarian instincts that we all have and to which we respond on occasions such as this, when we expect Governments, as a basic part of their duty, to protect the people who live in their countries. The responsibility to protect, as formalised and debated in recent years, has been clearly based around the ideas of the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react and the responsibility to rebuild. On all those grounds, the Burmese regime has failed, not just in the past 10 days, but over many years.
	The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, of which Gareth Evans was a member, published a report in December 2001 and kick-started this debate more broadly at the United Nations. It stated:
	Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of...state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.
	So, we cannot pretend that this is not a legitimate area for debate, and we must be clear that in our deliberations we are examining where we can go using that new authority. I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development, the Prime Minister and others have recognised that it is a legitimate part of the process. I equally acknowledge that it is not straightforward, to put it mildly, to move the debate through our partners in the United Nations Security Council, and I hope briefly to discuss that in a little while.
	We must not assume in this debate that that responsibility means an automatic rush to have military action, or military or another assertive form of intervention. Military action is an option, but it must only be a last resort and it is not what is contemplated in this situation. As the shadow Secretary of State made clear, and as the motion sets out, our instincts and objectives are humanitarian. Inevitably, military assets and military assistance will be necessary and useful in making the humanitarian intervention more effective, so we must be prepared to argue the case in not only this Chamber but the broader international community.
	The international response has been patchy. We can be encouraged by the fact that in this country and many others there has been a good response from the public to the appeals made by the Disasters Emergency Committee and others. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House would encourage everybody who can to contribute to that assistance. We know that major NGOs, such as Save the Children and Merlin, which are mentioned in the motion, and others, are making strenuous efforts as we speak to minimise the cost to lives and the quality of lives in Burma.
	Thailand, as a neighbouring state, has been as supportive as it can be and is hosting much of the international support network. China, we have seen in recent months, is more willing to play a quietly assertive role with the Burmese. We must hope that China will not stand in the way of the international community's making it plain to the Burmese that their attitude is not acceptable or sustainable.
	As we sympathise with the Chinese about their terrible loss over the past couple of days following the earthquake, we must also congratulate them on the speedy way in which the Chinese Prime Minister and others have been at the scene of the disaster and on how they have encouraged others to contribute to what they are seeking to do. That lesson might have been very painful for them to learn, but I hope that they will see the logic of extending that lesson to their neighbour. India, too, surely has an important role to play, and has been sadly too quiet in its comments thus far.
	On such occasions, we are used to turning to regional bodies and wondering what they are doing. I do not think that I am alone in being frustrated at the slowness of the response from the Association of South East Asian Nations countries, of which Burma is one. It is deeply alarming that it has taken them so long to gather. It was good to hear that they will have a mercy mission and that they will hopefully ratify that on the 19th, but surely this disaster needs not bureaucratic responses but political pressure, applied quickly and now, to make the Burmese change their minds.
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State talked about bringing our European partners together and the fact that the commissioner is to visit the region. Perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate might also brief the House on the extent to which European funds and other forms of support have been offered by our partners. It is important to demonstrate that Europe can come together on these issues and be more effective than we are bilaterally. In particular, the UN reckoned a few days ago that $187 million of support might be neededalthough the figure might have changedbut we have not heard thus far how much of that has been delivered. It would be helpful to know what will happen.
	Ministers, officials and others are to be congratulated on the efforts that they have made so far and on their steadfastness. We know that they were working over the weekend to brief colleagues in the House as well as attending to the details of what was going on. We cannot criticise them on that level. We want to know if they believe that as a result of their actions, in Europe and elsewhere, the funding and logistical support will be in place for that moment when, we must hope, the Burmese change their attitude and allow things to move on.
	In particular, may we have an assurance that the money that has been pledged is additional to that that was already in the budget for the region or for Burmathat it is not replacement or accelerated funding, which would otherwise have been given later in the year? It is important that we have that assurance, and a statement this afternoon would be helpful.

Douglas Alexander: I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he was looking for. The funds that we are providing for immediate humanitarian assistance to Burma are additional to the programme funding that we would otherwise have provided. That will continue to be the approach as we reflect on the flash appeal and the need for further assistance in the days and weeks to come.

Michael Moore: I am sure that that is welcome on both sides of the House; right hon. and hon. Members will be pleased to have heard that.
	We cannot imagine what it is like in Burma or China at present. It is incumbent on us all, however, to ensure that our support, our suggestions, the questions that we ask and the things that we do are dedicated to one objective: minimising further humanitarian suffering and death in that region. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak this afternoon and to support the motion.

John Battle: I welcome this debate and the topic that has been chosen by the Opposition. It is a credit to us all that at a time when we have talked for weeks about the world economic crisis, the credit crunch and pressure on budgets in Britain, we respond generously as a country when we see a humanitarian crisis and people losing their livelihoods and lives. We ought not to forget that in the arguments we have in this House.
	I believe that the Government need to be congratulated on the fact that they responded quickly and have given an international lead in their response to the appeal and the crisis. That is good news. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) was generous enough to acknowledge the work done by the former Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), in trying to sharpen up the UN humanitarian response. It had been a bit of a shambles, frankly, but some order was put into the system. We are trying to give a lead, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield for his remarks.
	In parenthesis, the debate is haunted by the fact that we have much to do to transform, reform and shape the UN and to turn it into a body that defends the universal common good, whether during humanitarian disasters or when countries inflict violence on their own populations. We have much to do to turn the UN into an international body that serves the general common good of our world. It is difficult when there is a need for consensus and we cannot reach one, and that is perhaps why we end up in the difficulties that we do.
	It would be desperate if, in spite of the Government's good efforts and the financial commitments that people have given in appeals, as well as the Government's budgeting to ensure that there is money for aid in such crises, our response and the need to focus on the provision of humanitarian aid and the needs of the people of Burma were to degenerate into a debilitating political stand-off between the west and Burma, or a deadlock in the UN Security Council while thousands needlessly die. There is a danger that the response to the crisis might end up like that.
	I know from my experience on the Select Committee on International Development over some years, and from my experience over the years of the management of disasters and crises elsewhere, that we ought to try to keep together meeting the need for materialsfood, water tablets and sanitation equipmentand the deployment of professional, experienced people on the ground to ensure that aid reaches people in an orderly fashion and that there is some sense of process. What has happened in Burma is the worst disaster since the tsunami in 2004. We have all worked on the reports from this House on implementing the lessons from that disaster, so we must look back at what happened then and ask what we learnedwe did learn from that disasteras well as what we can do better. We should try to the best of our abilities to cajole the international community to get Burma on side to deal with the crisis properly.
	Richard Horsey, from the UN humanitarian operations, has pinpointed four immediate needs: clean drinking water; emergency shelter; medical supplies and support, which are not easy to drop from the air in any circumstances; and food. Estimates have varied and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the figures that he gave. The latest reports from the ground estimate that the number of people dead and missing is now more than 200,000. At least 1.5 million people are in need of immediate assistance and more than 300,000 are in desperate need. This is not a small-scale emergency but a major emergency for the Burmese people.
	The estimate that 300,000 people are in dire need means that a minimum of 150 metric tonnes of food a day must be sent into that country now. That is the equivalent of 10 standard relief flights a day for food alone. We heard today that since the cyclone hit, there have been about 35 flights. The scale on which food has been provided is completely out of kilter with what is needed. That is why this is an urgent debate about how to deal with the crisis, rather than just an attempt to nudge the UN in the right direction and to ensure that it gets its terms of reference right. Such urgency needs to be injected into that debate in the UK and internationally.
	Today the UN is calling for an air bridge or a sea corridor. There were even hints that a floating warehouse in the Irrawaddy delta region could be used to channel in aid on the scale needed. I would like to know whether those practical proposals are being discussed internationally, both at the UN and with the Burmese authorities. Let us literally give the authorities a bridgea way forwardthrough the difficulties. If the aid, and the personnel to manage the aid, do not get through, in not many days there will be starvation and disease on a scale that we have not seen before, as the second wave of the disaster hits the Burmese people.
	I would like more clarification from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), on the following point. The regime still insists that it does not really need aid on the scale that is envisaged, and it seems to be insisting that it does not need practical assistance in delivering that aid, yet I get the impression that it does not even have the equipment to unload planes properly. Loads are passed from hand to hand; the people do not have the necessary equipment. I was under the impression that army checkpoints have been used in the delta region to prevent personnel from foreign non-governmental organisations from entering. I think that it is still difficult to get a permit to move out of Rangoon. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have said that there has been an ease-up in the situation, which would be most welcome.

Douglas Alexander: In my discussions with the British NGOs this morning, it was confirmed that although some are finding it difficult to secure access to areas outside Rangoon, others are not. My right hon. Friend is right to recognise that there are difficulties with lift capability and unloading planes at Rangoon airport. That is one of the reasons why part of the money that we are providing will be spent on cargo lifting material to allow quicker offloading of the planes arriving at Rangoon airport. As for the level of access being secured by aid workers, the picture in the country continues to be generally confused. Some of those aid workers are positive, but some still find it extremely difficult to move around.

John Battle: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. When I was privileged enough to be in the Foreign Office, I learned that British officials are incredibly pragmatic, in the best sense of the word. They resolve problems in detail, and that is what we need now: hard-headed ways forward on issues. I welcome that approach. That is what came through in the International Development Committee's seventh report of the 2006 Session, which was on humanitarian responses to natural disasters. The Government responded to the report and we debated it in the House. The point that came through most strongly was that we cannot go ahead anywhere with haphazard, random, inefficient air drops in areas where there is still bad weatherand there is still bad weather in Burma; it is still raining. It is difficult terrain, and it is a flooded area. The drops will be lost and will not reach the people.
	It is not just a question of getting the food there. The real issue is the need for people with humanitarian expertise. Skilled personnel from the NGOs and the UN are needed on the ground. We are not starting from scratch, having had no one there. World Vision, Merlin, Save the Children, Care International and the International Red Cross have had staff in Burma for a long time. The Burmese authorities have memorandums of understanding with all those NGOs to allow them to provide humanitarian aid; that has been the situation for a while. As I think the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, Save the Children has had 500 members of staff in Burma since 1995. We are not starting from nothing.
	Can we build on what we know is working? Can we extend those memorandums of understanding? I suggest that as a way forward, because we need professionals on the ground. We need to give reassurance, even to people in this country. If we make a flash appeal and want people to give, their first question will be, How can we be sure that the money will reach the people who need it?; otherwise, a lack of assurance may undermine the aid appeals and deter people from giving. That is why the central issue is access, and not good will, the amount of money concerned, or the commitments that the Government have given. We must negotiate access, so that we can properly assess the needs on the ground. That is what the experts are brilliant at doing. They can work out the need and manage the aid coming into the country to make sure that it reaches people in a proper, orderly, managed fashion.

Douglas Alexander: rose

Andrew Mitchell: rose

John Battle: I am more than happy to give way, first to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and then to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for his clear sense of priority in who he chooses to give way to. Will he accept the following assurance? I had a conversation with the director of Save the Children only this morning, and she was able to assure me that Save the Children continues to operate, fully supports the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal, and asks that I continue to communicate to the people of the United Kingdom, as I sought to do in interviews over the weekend, that the money that they are donating through the DEC is already making a difference on the ground in Burma.

John Battle: I am grateful for that, and that should be pointed out, because we want people to be generous in their help, as the needs are massive.

Andrew Mitchell: My aim in intervening was precisely the same as that of the Secretary of State. When I was in Rangoon last year, I saw the work done on the ground by Save the Children, and the excellent work being done in Burma by Andrew Kirkwood. Everyone who gives money to the DEC appeal can be absolutely confident that they have a really first-class NGO in Save the Children. Other NGOs mentioned in this debate are also doing very valuable work on the ground.

John Battle: I am grateful for that. On the DEC and the NGOs that gather around it, from my personal experience over the years I can say that I have absolute confidence that all our NGOs ensure that what the British people give them reaches the people. That is why the real issue is to encourage, exhort and convince the Burmese authorities to allow in world-class independent expertise, and the well-respected independent organisations that can help to manage and monitor the impact of humanitarian aid in Burma. I am not asking for us to go there; I do not ask our Prime Minister, or even the Secretary of State to go there. I am asking for independent people with experience of managing such situations to be allowed to do that work on the ground. I do not ask them to negotiate the politics or the future of Burma; I want them to get resources to the people.
	May I make two further points? We need to address the immediate needs of the people. People are surviving by putting little plastic cups out to catch rainwater, because they have no water. Fifteen days post-disaster, the mortality rate for the under-fives goes up massively, and 30 days later there is crisis on an unimaginable scale, because the mortality rate rises then apply to the whole population. Disease spreads exponentially 30 days in. We are now at a crucial time.
	However, even though this is an important moment, I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to think ahead to the medium and longer term. There are 2 million homeless people in Burma, and 3,000 schools have been destroyed. As was the case with the tsunami, the big money is not needed at the front end. In the case of the tsunami, the money came in well, through generous donations from people and Governments, but money was needed for the medium and longer term, when the media went away. We now need to get a focus on the reconstruction. I want to flag that up, even at this early stage.
	Finally, I should like to follow up a remarkit was almost an aside, although an important onemade by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, concerning rice. Rice prices have risen by 30 per cent. in the past two months. As everybody knows, rice is the staple of the people of Burma, particularly poor people. Tragically, the flooding and the cyclone have hit the Irrawaddy delta, which is the rice bowl of the whole of Burma. The World Food Programme estimates that Burma has less than half the rice that it needs to feed all its people, so there is a desperate need for food, both now and in the long term. That is because it is harvest time, but the harvest has been washed away, as have the stored grains.
	Worse still, we are right in the middle of planting for the next harvest. How can people plant in fields of salt water? That is the problem. The tide has come in, and rice cannot be grown in salt water. There will be a food crisis in Burma for months to come. There is already a problem, but we need to address the issue of the failure of the next crop, otherwise within months we will be back discussing the issue in the House. In the best sense, I hope that we do debate the issue again in the House, but tragically we could be discussing mass hunger in Burma, and not just how to tackle the present humanitarian crisis.

Tony Baldry: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), with whom I enjoyed working for a number of years on the International Development Committee. As ever, he spoke a considerable amount of sense.
	Those of us who have witnessed humanitarian disasters know that the scale of the Burma disaster requires an enormous amount of professional logistic assistance and support to ensure that food, water and medical supplies get to the right people. That requires a great deal of expertise, which the international community has. The task cannot be accomplished by army personnel unloading cartons at airports. Getting sizeable amounts of water and food to large numbers of displaced people is a difficult logistical exercise.
	There are, as we understand it, hundreds and hundreds of children who, tragically, have been orphaned. Looking after those children and ensuring that they do not become dehydrated or die of malnutrition is incredibly important. Someone has to take responsibility for that. The concern of many of us is that, to date, the Burmese authorities do not look as though they want to take responsibility. They did not have warning systems in place. For many days after the cyclone struck, there seemed to be very little, if any, response from the Burmese authorities, and their resistance to allowing the international community to come into Burmatheir refusal to grant visas and so forthis a matter for considerable concern.
	It is heartening to hear from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that NGOs are slowly beginning to be able to get into Burma, but one has to recognise that the scale of the disaster is enormous. It will require large numbers of people and expertise in the very near future if a major humanitarian disaster is to be averted.
	The right hon. Member for Leeds, West made another point that I wish to amplify. In the case of a drought, such as that in Ethiopia, it is hoped that the rains will fall the next year and people will be able to return to their homes and villages, plant crops again and restart. The entire topography of the Irrawaddy delta looks as though it has been changed for ever. Relocating and rehousing thousands of families and children would be a massive humanitarian and political challenge to any Government, let alone a Government who are inherently secretive.
	To amplify a further point made by the right hon. Gentleman, we are seeing throughout the world from Burma to Somalia to Zimbabwe the impact of rising food prices. That gives enormous power to whoever controls the food. Allowing the army in Burma to control humanitarian food supplies substantially enhances the position of the Burmese authorities and army. The same happens anywhere. We had Foreign Office questions yesterday. From reading in the regional press about what is happening in Somalia, it is clear that the militias are seeking to control the food supplies. In terms of the broader conflict in Somalia, that puts the militias in an incredibly strong position. We should bear that in mind.
	We must also bear it in mind that the architecture of international institutions such as the World Food Programme will probably have to change dramatically. For a long time the World Food Programme took surplus grain from countries such as Australia and the United States, kept it in reserve and made it available, when necessary, to countries such as Malawi. Serious structural deficits in world food supplies will require the World Food Programme to become a kind of hunger agency and to be much more proactive in trying to ensure that countries become more self-sufficient in agricultural production.
	It is, for example, crazy that Sierra Leone, which used to be able to export rice and had some of the best rice production in west Africa, is still importing rice. There is no reason why Sierra Leone should not be growing rice again. It is not a difficult crop to start to grow, it takes only one year to get it going, and the conflict in Sierra Leone has been over for some time.
	The Burmese cyclone demonstrates, tragically, yet again that when natural disasters hit, they invariably hit the poorest and the weakest worst. Whether it be the tsunami in Sri Lanka, the earthquake in Kashmir or the cyclone in Burma, because people are unbelievably poor they are less able to resist natural shocks. We must not forget that at the best of times Burma is a very poor country. Before the cyclone hit, about a third of Burma's population lived below the poverty line and infant mortality was extremely high. Before the cyclone hit, the World Food Programme estimated that about a third of the children under five were malnourished. The country was extremely fragile even before the recent disaster.
	I am not necessarily suggesting that a cyclone is caused by climate change, but the point that I want to make to the House is that all those climate-related disasters hit the poorest and the weakest hardest, which is why, when it comes to the Climate Change Bill and the work that we are doing on climate change, there is a moral imperative to support some of the weakest people on the planet by ensuring that the Bill goes through and that we have effective legislation on climate change.
	I shall not add to what the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the shadow Secretary of State, said about the immediate future in Burma. Knowing both the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, I am sure that with DFID's experience over the years in disaster intervention it is doing an exceptionally good job. Like most Members of the House, I am sorry that there seem to be some unnecessary divisions across the Chamber.
	I shall take this opportunity to try to tease out the Government's position on the concept of the responsibility to protect. That is an important issue. For some time now, the international community has been groping with the question of how to protect vulnerable people in countries where their own Governments cannot or will not protect them. On a number of occasions the Security Council determined that there was a threat to peace, even if the situation was internal. We saw examples of that in Somalia in 1992, Haiti in 1994, Rwanda, Zaire, Yugoslavia and East Timor, which the right hon. Member for Leeds, West had much to do with when he was a Minister at the Foreign Office.
	There has been a tendency, however, for the international community to make it up, so to speak, as we go along. For example, Lord Hurd of Westwell, when he was Foreign Secretary, justifying the no-fly zones over northern Iraq in 1991, said that
	we operate under international law. Not every action that a British Government or an American Government or a French Government takes has to be underwritten by a specific provision in a UN Resolution provided we comply with international law. International law recognises extreme humanitarian need . . . we are on strong legal as well as humanitarian grounds in setting up this 'No Fly Zone'.
	As has been said, in September 2003 Kofi Annan, when Secretary-General of the UN, established a high level panel on threats, challenges and change. It followed the Canadian example and endorsed that work in producing what was described as an emerging norm of responsibility to protect civilians from large scale violence. The panel's report, which the UN endorsed, makes two further points that I would like to cite. It stated:
	We endorse the emerging norm that there is a collective international responsibility to protect, exercisable by the Security Council authorising military intervention as a last resort in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing, or serious violations of international humanitarian law, which sovereign Governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent.
	It also states:
	There is growing recognition that the issue is not the 'right to intervene' of any State, but the 'responsibility to protect' of every State when it comes to people suffering from avoidable catastrophemass murder and rape, ethnic cleansing by forcible expulsion and terror, and deliberate starvation and exposure to disease, and there is growing acceptance that while sovereign Governments have the primary responsibility to protect their own citizens from such catastrophes, when they are unable or unwilling to do so that responsibility should be taken up by the wider international community.
	I am concerned that the Government's amendment makes no reference to the responsibility to protect. We all know that parliamentary clerks in the various Departments will have pondered the wording of the resolutions carefully. I was concerned to see press reports that John Sawers, whoas many people will knowwas an excellent Foreign Office diplomat for many years and is now our representative at the United Nations, had said that the doctrine of responsibility to protect applies only to intervention in response to genocide and war crimes. If that is the line that the Foreign Office is now taking, it is a much more restricted line than the Government took in the past. It is certainly a much more restricted line than the previous Administration took, and it would be helpful to understand what the Government mean when they talk about the responsibility to protect.
	I understand if the Secretary of State's response is to say that this is not a dispute about the responsibility to protect, but a pragmatic difference of opinion about how we keep China and Russia onside in the Security Council, but I hope that he will make that clear. The amendment says that the FCO
	urges countries in the region to increase their efforts to persuade the Burmese authorities to allow in unfettered international assistance.
	That seems to suggest that it is not a matter for the Security Council or the UN, but for us just to try to help regional partners put pressure on Burma. If that is the situationlet us not forget that the UK chairs the UN Security Councilwe would be giving way too easily.
	I also wish to flag up the concern that at some stage we will all have to engage more closely with China so that we better understand how it sees its role in the international community and the international community's role in humanitarian disasters. So oftenas in Darfur and now in Burmathe Security Council is semi-paralysed because France, the US and the UK take one view, which is broadly the responsibility to protect, and Russia and China take a different view. China and Russia are often preoccupied by access to natural resources and their own internal political agenda, but we have only the UN to act as the voice of the international community as a whole, and if the Security Council is paralysed, it will make the expression of that voice incredibly difficult.

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes his reasonable point well, and in the same spirit I wish to reiterate the position taken by the Foreign Secretary last night on The World Tonight, set out again by the Prime Minister at PMQs today and rehearsed in my earlier contribution to the debate. We retain the option of invoking the responsibility to protect. The disagreement reflected in the debate betrays some genuine confusion among the Opposition on the issue of the responsibility to protect, but it also reflects our continuing determination to raise these matters at the UN. That was the position that I adopted at the European Council of Development Ministers yesterday, and we have set it out publicly and continue to argue for it at the UN. The hon. Gentleman rightly recognises that there is no consensus with our partners on that issue in New York, but we continue to put the case to them.

Tony Baldry: I welcome the Secretary of State's confirmation of that line and I am glad that we have that on the record. There was some ambiguity, and I would hate there to be any suggestion in the international community that Britain, which has been one of those working hardest to encourage the sense that we live in one world with a mutual responsibility for fellow citizens, was resiling in any sense from that general principle. It is important that that is clearly on the record. No one underestimates the complexity of this issue, or of any otherincluding Zimbabwe and Darfur. We are not children and we all understand that we have to have a pragmatic approach as well as a principled approach.
	My wider concern in this debate is that it is one thing for some of the members of the Security Council to be anxious that we do not interfere unnecessarily in matters that should be the sovereign responsibility of member states, but the suspicion must bein Darfur or in Burmathat the self-interest of those members is uppermost. The international community cannot function on that basis. That may mean that we have to try to expand the Security Council to bring in other member stateswhich has been discussed for a long time and is unfinished businessbut we need to ensure that the UN and its institutions match the needs of the 21st century.

Julian Lewis: I apologise that a commitment to the Royal British Legion meant that I missed part of the Secretary of State's speech, but, as I understand it, the point that I raised in an earlier intervention still has not been addressed. Whereas it was thought a few days ago that China was blocking action being taken on the Security Council, that surely ought no longer to be the case, now that China is reacting to its disaster in the way that the Burmese authorities should have reacted to their disaster. What efforts is Britain making at the UN to put China to the test about why it will not support similar measures being taken in respect of Burma that it welcomes for itself?

Tony Baldry: My take on thatand I would be interested to see whether it finds support elsewhereis that China sees the world in terms of spheres of influence. China sees Burma as being within its own sphere of influence, just as it sees parts of Africa in the same way. Burma's main trading partner is China, which accesses a lot of coal, timber and other resources from Burma. China was anxious about the international community internationalising the involvement in Burma, so China, sadly, has taken a very different position in the Security Council from that to its own earthquake catastrophe, where it has been glad to see international support.

Douglas Alexander: It is fair to place on the record that I first contacted the Chinese ambassador here in London before the tragic earthquake that now afflicts the country, and I made clear to her our strong desire that China use its considerable influence over the Burmese regime to secure the unfettered access that is the desire of Members on both sides of the House. She in turn, before the earthquake, made it clear that that was the Chinese Government's position, and that she would pass our representations back to Beijing, but assured me that efforts had already been made by Beijing to make representations to the Burmese Government. As I say, further contact is being sought both through our permanent representative in New York and direct ministerial contact, but it is right to recognise that even before the soliciting of international aid by the Chinese Government following the earthquake, the Chinese ambassador made it clear to me that Beijing had made representations to the Burmese regime, encouraging efforts to open up in the face of the terrible cyclone that affected the country.

Tony Baldry: That is welcome from the Secretary of State, but he will also have to note that today's report in the  Financial Times by Harvey Morris at the United Nations states:
	South-east Asian states moved to take the lead in the Burma relief effort yesterday after China, the military regime's closest ally, rebuffed western attempts to raise the plight of 1.5 million victims of cyclone Nargis at the United Nations Security Council.
	It adds that
	the Security Council, meeting in closed session yesterday, consigned
	because of China's intervention
	the crisis to the heading 'any other business'.
	The Chinese ambassador in London is an incredibly nice lady

Andrew Mitchell: A very tough lady.

Tony Baldry: Tough and nice. But China's actions in the Security Council are not entirely consistent with the line that she has taken.

Douglas Alexander: Other partners on the Security Council object to the Security Council being an appropriate forum for reasons of national sovereignty and the invocation of the responsibility to protect doctrine. In that sense, it is for others on the Security Council to account for the position that they have taken. The emphasis that we place on China, India and ASEAN partners results from the fact that, historically, significant influence has been wielded in relation to Burma by both India and China, and of course influence continues to be exerted by neighbours in the immediate region. For us, it is not an either/or between encouraging China, India and ASEAN partners to exert their influence on the regime and continuing to work to use the mechanism of the United Nations and its various bodies. It is important that we send a clear signal, and some partners on the Security Council, because of a particular view of the status of the Security Council, can find themselves in the position of objecting to the position that we, as the British Government, would support.

Tony Baldry: I have no quarrel with the Secretary of State on any of that except that I express the concern that there are members of the Security Council who view the Security Council in a way that will limit its role in the future. It is the only international institution of its kind that we have, and we will have to return to how we ensure that the UN functions effectively and properly. All sorts of bits of reparation and repair work might have to be done. The whole matter of the UK, the US, the Iraq invasion and the coalition of the willing has done some damage, but, bluntly, the truth is that the Security Council, through no fault of the UK and its chairmanship, has not stepped up to the mark in this crisis in the way that one would have hoped and expected. It is as simple as that.
	I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, not least the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who I am sure will add to comments about the responsibility to protect, and I am glad that the House has had the opportunity to debate the issue in the main Chamber in prime time. I hope that the Secretary of State will undertake to update the House regularly, becauseI entirely endorse and echo what the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) saidthis will be a long-running tragedy that will need an enormous amount of international effort. We all know that one of the real tragedies of such events is that they understandably endure for a period of time on the television screens and news broadcasts, and then they are simply forgotten, and large numbers of people feel forgotten and abandoned. We should, if we do nothing else during the course of the debate, make it clear to the people of Burma that they will be neither forgotten nor abandoned.

Mike Gapes: I agree with much that has been said and I will not repeat those points, but I want to pay tribute to the non-governmental organisations that are today doing vital work in Burma, but also in other parts of the world, saving lives and improving the conditions of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. That work goes on, day by day, regardless of whether newspapers and television programmes are showing any interest in it. It is important that members of the British public know that those organisations are not corrupt, that they are efficient and that, as has been said, money that is given gets through directly.
	I concur with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) who talked about the situation with the vile brutal regime in Burma. It is important that we understand that as well as not doing enough, or actively impairing humanitarian efforts, it has also devoted its television channels to broadcasting smiling, dancing women, telling people to go out and vote; it has postponed its referendum on its fake constitution in the area that is now under water by just a few weeks, seemingly in the belief that it can then run some falsified referendum in a few weeks' time; and it is still pursuing its brutal repression of the ethnic groups in the rest of its country. This, after all, is a very complicated country, where there is a brutal military regime at the top, which does not have the support of the people, and where Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, 20 years ago, won a democratic electionthen she was put under house arrest, which she has been unable to leave. It is important to place that on the record today.
	The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to the impact of climate change. Sadly, that issue, which we are confronting today, will have to be confronted more and more in this century. Rising sea levels and extreme weather conditions impact on coastal peoples causing natural disasters, with a world population that is now far more urbanised, and with many people and living in flood plains or on the coast. We need international mechanisms whereby we can intervene quickly and effectively in such cases.
	However, we do not live in a world of world government. We do not live in a world where the United Nations General Assembly or the United Nations Security Council can decide something and then it happens. There are almost 200 countries in the world, some with corrupt and incompetent Governments, some that are failed states, and some where the Governments are not incompetent, but rather are very effective at maintaining their power despite the wishes of their people or of the rest of the world. It is extremely frustrating when we know that intervention and assistance could make a huge difference to those millions of people, yet we do not have the means to intervene. There is therefore a real question to be confronted about how we strengthen international institutions and the rule of international law.
	The motion in the name of the Conservative party uses the phrase international community in its last sentence. I would ask what we mean by international community. We have had a bit of a debate about the differences between the motion and the Government amendment. The Government amendment, interestingly, does not use that phrase. It talks about the United Nations. I am trying to tease out whether we are saying that the existing UN system is not able to deal with these issues. Does that mean that we should move towards a league of democracies that would act outsidemy Scottish friends would say outwiththe international community? That issue is flagged up in an article in today's  Financial Times by the foreign policy adviser to Senator John McCain, Mr. Robert Kagan. I am very worried about that development, because we do not strengthen the ability to act, particularly in countries such as Burma, if we do not have the support of the growing major power in Asia, which is China, or of India. If we rely simply on the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Canadians, the United States and European Union countries, that will not be effective.
	Sadly, reference has been made to opposition within the UN Security Council to taking responsibility. That is not just China. It is also Russia and South Africaa non-permanent member of the Security Council that seems to have taken a totally traditionalist attitude to non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. That is the traditional Communist party view from the 1970s, which seems to be influential in the Foreign Ministry of the Republic of South Africa. It is understandable, but it is not right, because in the world today we need the growing economic and political powers, the so-called BRICSBrazil, India, China and South Africato work for the development of international institutions that work. They should not take a traditionalist view that would stop the more effective international organisations that we need to deal with such issues working.
	Even if we all agreed, however, we would still face a very difficult situation because we know that intervention is not always easy, and there are unintended consequences. Reference has been made to the no-fly zones in connection with the Kurds in Iraq. I think that John Major's Government deserved enormous credit for establishing that. It may have been said that it was in accordance with international law, but it is doubtful whether it was. Kosovo, too, comes to mind. Some people have said that the invasion in 1999 was illegal but legitimate. That was done with no UN Security Council authorisation or resolution, and we are still dealing with the consequences of that today with the developments in the Balkans, Serbia and the greater western Balkans.
	If there were to be intervention by the international community, however defined, without a UN Security Council resolution, it would be contrary to the conditions laid down within the Canadian-sponsored commission, the UN Secretary-General's high-level panel and the UN General Assembly resolution of 2005. It was made explicit in 2005 at the General Assembly that the principle of the responsibility to protect would be based on, first, each state having the responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, not from humanitarian disasters. Secondly, the principle is that if a state fails to discharge its responsibility, the international community has a responsibility to use peaceful means to protect the population, and it can also, on a case-by-case basis, as a last resort, and through the Security Council, issue a binding resolution or authorise the use of force if
	national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations.
	There is perhaps an argument that by failing to assist in coping with this disaster, the regime in Burma is manifestly failing to protect its population.

Stephen Crabb: Or worse.

Mike Gapes: Or worse. But the principle is that the Security Council has to issue a binding resolution. The Chinese and the Russians have at least to acquiesce in it. If not, any intervention would not be authorised by the UN system. That is important.
	Then we get to the question of practicalities. There was an interesting article by Bronwen Maddox yesterday in  The Times pointing out that even if there were a debate on these matters, the question of legality is irrelevant if the intervention would not improve the situation on the ground. We have heard the arguments about what the NGOs feel about whether air drops can be an effective way to send in the things that are needed. Even though there is a great desire, as there always is in such issues, for something to be done, we have to judge whether what is being proposed will make the situation more difficult to comply with, or whether it will assist.
	This is a difficult issue because, as has been recognised, we are not dealing with just a few days' or a few weeks' humanitarian assistance. There would have to be a huge commitment, perhaps lasting several years, particularly in areas that have are now under water and have been made impossible for human habitation, from which the populations have to be moved somewhere else and given a new start. That will require, presumably, the co-operation of the Government of the country concerned, or at least their acquiescence, while people come in and in effect take over and create a kind of safe haven. It might be argued that that was done with the northern no-fly zone in Iraq to protect the Kurds, and with the southern no-fly zone to protect the Shi'a population.
	Actions have consequences, so the term responsibility to protect needs to be clearly defined. Gareth Evans, the former Foreign Minister of Australia, who heads the international crisis group and who chaired the UN panel, is right to say that there are dangers in eroding the definition of what we mean. However, as Opposition Front Benchers pointed out, he also said that there might be circumstances in which such action was necessary. That is similar to the call of the French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, for the international community to act.
	I will support the amendment. I believe that the Opposition tabled their motion with good intentions, but language such as responsibility to protect needs greater clarity. Otherwise, we may find that we undermine an important principle of dealing with humanitarian issues such as war crimes, stopping ethnic cleansing and other matters to which the UN resolution refers.
	In the next few weeks, I believe that the Chinese Government will have a decisive influence. I met the Chinese ambassador yesterday, and China is clearly exercised about its perception by the worldwhether in the context of Tibet, Darfur, the Olympics or other issues, including the terrible earthquake and its consequences. The Chinese Government have moved into the 21st century in dealing with matters internationally. The Chinese Prime Minister did not do what President Putin did over the submarine Kursk, but went quickly to the area of the disaster. The Chinese Government openly and quickly publicised what was going on, and are prepared to accept international assistance, although they have the capabilityand are showing that they have itto help their people and deal with that enormous disaster.
	I hope that such a reaction will translate into Chinese foreign policy and influence some of China's traditional allies. However, the experience of South Africa shows that Foreign Ministries are sometimes the last redoubts of the conservatives. When domestic reforms happen, people are shunted off to Foreign MinistriesI do not believe that there are any parallels in this country

Julian Lewis: Stalinist.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman is shouting at me, but I will not take an intervention.
	The position in Burma today is a tragedy for the people, added to the other tragedies and oppressions that they have suffered. I hope that it means that the world will continue to focus on that country, not only on the immediate disaster but on allowing the people of Burma to have a democratic representative Government so that, in the case of future disasters, they have a Government who care for their people and do their best for them.

Nigel Evans: It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He commented on China, which has become a world superpower, and its new position brings new responsibilities. It has some geographical responsibility for Burma, and it must show leadership, talk to the junta that operates there and ensure that the physical and other aid that is needed can get into that country.
	When we consider what is happening in Burma after the cyclone and look at the photographs of babies and young children floating in the water or lined up on river banks, it makes us want to cry. When we consider that the junta in charge of that country will stand idly by and prevent humanitarian aid from getting into the country, one simply despairs.
	The last time I spoke about Burma in the Chamber a few months ago, I condemned the hideous regime for its reaction to the outpouring of ordinary people, led by the monks, in response to their despair at the poverty that already existed in that country. Now, Burma has been hit by a natural disaster and its Government intervene to prevent the aid that the rest of the world wants to give from getting into the country. People have died and will continue to die because of their Government's reaction. It is desperate to contemplate why the regime acts in that way.
	Whole families are being torn apart. Fathers, mothers and children are dying, orphans are being created and, if the Burmese Government do not relent, disease will break out. Hundreds of thousands of further deaths will ensue if action is not taken now. The junta stands before the world court, and is condemned as guilty of genocide. The actions that it is now taking means that it is as good as murdering its own people. Those actions are a crime against humanity, and in the history to be written in years to come, future generations yet to be born will look at what happened and ask themselves poignantly why the rest of the world did not do more to help and save the Burmese people.
	In this Chamber we have already heard the horror stories: not only has the junta acted to stop the aid coming in, but it decided that its rogue referendum would still go ahead. What did that mean? It meant that resources that should have gone to help the people who were dying went towards the holding of the referendum. Vehicles that should have been used to help the people get to safe ground were used to distribute ballot papers. I find it absolutely stunning that the junta carried on with that referendum.
	We know that a trickle of aid is getting through, but it will not be enough to help the people who need the food and medicines. I heard that the junta was repackaging the aid coming from the United States simply so that its people might not think that it was coming from another country. It makes me despair to think about those starving Burmese people; the last thing that they were going to do was to read the packagingthey wanted to eat what was in the packaging.
	I understand that India gave Burma 41 warnings about the cyclone, starting on Saturday 26 April. The junta did nothing. It took a three-day public holiday and then closed its overseas embassies, causing even more delays for foreign aid workers who needed to get visas. Recent reports indicate that the junta has put only $5 million into helping the victims of the cyclone. However, two years ago the Burmese leader, Than Shwe, spent $300,000 on his daughter's wedding and she received wedding presents from regime members amounting to more than $50 million.
	Rather than diverting its huge army to help alleviate the disaster, the regime has stepped up its attacks on the Karen people since the cyclone. Ben Rogers, of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, has said:
	This is a regime guilty of every possible human rights violation, amounting to crimes against humanity, and possibly a case of genocide. The Generals have presided over campaigns involving the widespread, systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, forced labour, forced relocation, and the destruction of over 3,200 villages in eastern Burma since 1996. Over a million people are internally displaced as a result of military offensives against civilians. And all this was going on before Cyclone Nargis.
	The regime has only one care: self-preservation and control. As long as it perceives an international presence in Burma as a threat, it will continue to refuse access and to manipulate the aid. The Burmese junta's intransigence in the face of the catastrophe makes a strong case for the responsibility of the United Nations to protect. I understood fully what the Secretary of State said about nothing being ruled out, and I am delighted that he said it. At some stage, if things carry on as they have been, we are clearly going to have to take further action of a different kind. Otherwise, the people who desperately need the food and aid will not get it.
	It is clear that China and Russia, as members of the United Nations Security Council, and India and Burma's other Asian neighbours can and must now exert some influence on the Burmese regime.

John Battle: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's passion and anger about what has been going on in Burma, but the situation is not new. I worry that he has used the word despair about seven times, because I am looking for some hope in this situation. I want to put my point to him in these terms. I am anxious for aid workers to get into Burma. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's priority is not to have a UN discussion on whether genocide has taken place. I also hope that he would rule out military intervention. I say that as someone who has opposed military intervention on every occasion in this Houseincluding in respect of Iraqbecause it causes more damage than good every time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that at the back of his mind he imagines a military intervention in Burma. That would not be the answer at all. The answer is to get in professionals from the non-governmental organisations and the UN. However, without a UN agreement, I do not see how he can follow his argument through.

Nigel Evans: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how. I make no apology for using the word despair seven timesI would use it 27 times if I had more timeor for using passion in my speech. I am sure that he feels anger and passion about what is going on in Burma, which has been going on for many years but is exacerbated by what has happened with the cyclone. His Secretary of State said that he ruled nothing out, and I take him at his word. All of us in this Chamber want the food and humanitarian aid to get through to that country however we are able to do it. We need to get that aid through. We do not want disease and pestilence to break out, leading to several hundred thousand more people dying. We are all agreed about what we want to do.

John Battle: How?

Nigel Evans: We have a pecking order of preferences. We want, surely, to use the influence that we have in the United Nations and with Russia and China to encourage them to use their influence on Burma to open the doors to the aid that the rest of the world wants to give it in order to save lives.
	I do not think that I need say any more than that, because we are all agreed that we must try to save the people who are in this plight. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) said that it is difficult for us to imagine what it is like in Burma today. Indeed, it is almost impossible for us to imagine how those people are living and the conditions in which they are operating, but we know that we must give them help in some way, shape or form.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that given the brutality of the current regime in Burma, limiting the level of intervention in the way that has been suggested may only encourage it in its intransigence, and that it is therefore important that there be no limit to the level of intervention if it is deemed necessary and deemed to be the only way of helping people who have been left to their own devices?

Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State said that he is going to rule nothing out. The last thing that we want to do is to come back to this Chamber in one month's time, or even two months' time, with nothing having happened, the aid still trickling through, and the regime taking part of that aid away and selling it to other countries. Given that it is even selling rice to other parts of the world when its own people are starving, it is obscene and perverse to say that we are going to carry on with our contractual commitments. I seek assurances from the Government that they are using every effort possible to ensure that we make advances and breakthroughsthe people of Burma deserve nothing less.

Stephen Crabb: As the last Back-Bencher to contribute to the debate, let me put on record how regrettable it is that there is an alternative motion on the Order Paper. This afternoon we had a really good opportunity to strike a strong, united and compassionate position in this House on the desperate plight facing the people of Burma, and we have fallen short of that. We like to pretend that what we say in this place matters, but sometimes we behave as if it does not and as if nobody in the outside world is watching. But people in south-east Asia will pay attention to what we are saying, and it is important that we send a strong signal from this House to the regime in Burma.
	The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) made an outstanding speech in which he rightly observed that even before Cyclone Nargis struck Burma last week the Burmese people were suffering under a humanitarian disaster. That is why 27 aid agencies are already there and Save the Children has 500 personnel on the ground, and why I and several colleagues who sit on the International Development Committee have been calling for many months and years for more DFID aid to go into Burma.
	The actions of the regime over the decades towards the peoplethe military crackdowns, the burnt-out villages, the campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Karen, Chin and Shan peoples of Burmahas led to a humanitarian disaster, and in the past week Cyclone Nargis has added another layer of catastrophe to the suffering of people there.

John Battle: rose

Stephen Crabb: Forgive me, but I will not give way.
	I welcome the new money that the Secretary of State pledged, and I welcome the fact that he clarified that it is additional money. I have a couple of brief points; I do not intend to go over ground that other speakers have gone over already. Earlier on, there was a discussion about air drops, and I sensed a false argument. No one is saying that all the aid should be dropped from the air, or that we should drop water from the air. However, it is not the case, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), that all the NGOs are against air drops. Oxfam and Save the Children have certainly expressed concern about air drops, but one of the directors of the United States Agency for International Development has said that unilateral air drops should be considered as a lever of policy.
	On the misappropriation of aid, a couple of speakers have already referred to aid being commandeered by the regime, re-badged, and then either sold on the black market or used inappropriately. During the past 48 hours, I read that some of the high-energy biscuits that arrived on one of the first World Food Programme flights had been taken to a military warehouse. I was not clear about to what use they had been put, but my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) hinted at it when he said that aid is a powerful tool for the junta in Burma. The concern is that because the regime relies so heavily on the support of the military, the 400,000 Burmese soldiers and their families will be prioritised in the disbursement of aid. One senior person from an NGO has expressed to me concern that low quality alternatives are being substituted for high quality, high nutrition biscuits before the aid is distributed to the mass of the population. Indeed, CARE Australia has put on record its concerns about the quality of rice being disbursed, which is very mouldy and of poor quality. There is a need for high quality, nutritional aid.
	On the United Nations, the Secretary of State referred to the discussions that the Prime Minister was having with Ban Ki-moon. I am afraid that I do not share the Secretary of State's optimism for what can be achieved at the UN. Indeed, Ban Ki-moon said that he had spent all weekend trying to get through on the phone to Senior General Than Shwe, with no success.

Virendra Sharma: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Crabb: Forgive me, but I am not going to give way. I have just three or four minutes left.
	The fact that the senior general, the ruler of Burma, will not even pick up the phone to speak to the Secretary-General of the UN highlights the way in which the Burmese regime runs rings round the UN time and time again. We saw that from the way it played Ibrahim Gambari in discussions about political reform in Burma. We should be cautious about the amount of optimism we invest in UN processes. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury rightly highlighted the need for serious reform of international processes and institutions with regard to how we respond to such disasters.
	Mention has been made of the role that the Association of South East Asian Nations can play. It is easy to knock ASEAN; it did not behave as quickly as we would have liked and often dealing with it is a case of two steps forward, one step backor one step forward and two steps back. That was certainly the case at the end of last year when many of us were initially optimistic that ASEAN would take a strong position on the political situation in Burma and the crackdown on democracy protestors, but in the end we were all slightly disappointed by the relatively weak stand that it took. However, ASEAN is important, and it is trying to assemble a mercy coalition to play some sort of effective role in the humanitarian effort in Burma. Rather than be critical of that, it is incumbent on Ministers and the Department to see what assistance they can provide to the ASEAN effort. The Secretary of State's Department is recognised as top of the class of governmental international aid Departments, and he should look at the assistance and advice that his Department can give to ASEAN's aid efforts. We want to see ASEAN play a much more productive and constructive role in Burma's affairs and this disaster perhaps provides an opportunity for it to do so.
	I will not go into the responsibility to protect, which numerous other speakers have covered.
	Genocide has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). In the early days of the disaster last week, even Liberal Democrat Front Benchers were talking about genocide, in the context of the regime's initial response. Genocide had been talked about in connection with the Burmese regime long before the disaster struck. Back in June 2006, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) tabled a question asking the Minister responsible at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office whether the Burmese regime's acts against the ethnic peoples there amounted to genocide. On that occasion, the Government did not take a definite position. In October 2006, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) tabled a similar question, again asking whether the actions of the regime in Burma amounted to genocide or an intent to commit genocide. Again, the Minister concerned did not quite take a clear position.
	Many of us hold the view that the behaviour of the regime in recent years amounts to genocide and a clear intention to commit genocide. The regime has strong genocidal tendencies, as has been demonstrated again in recent days.
	We cannot quite neatly separate the humanitarian issues from the political issues when we talk about the disaster in Burma of the past seven days. They are bundled up together. Indeed, I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is sitting on the Front Bench this afternoon, because I know that she takes a deep personal interest in the issue. Her presence serves as a reminder that the political issues are wrapped up with the international development issues.
	Our hope is that we get a more effective and systematic humanitarian effort up and running. The aid getting through is nothing like enough to bring relief to the people of Burma. However, there is a bigger hope beyond thatthat the tragic events of the past week will somehow lead to a new outlook, particularly on the part of the younger generation of Burmese rulers, who will come through when that group of ageing, corrupt and abhorrent generals finally has its day. As has been the case in other parts of the world, disasters have led to political reform. My hope is that once we get through the immediate humanitarian response, there will be a political sea change in Burma.

Virendra Sharma: I apologise that I was not in the Chamber earlier. I was in another meeting and therefore missed many of the contributions from my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that all issues have been covered, whatever I have heard so far.
	As an immigrant from India, a neighbouring country, I understand the impact that the current disaster and previous political actions have had not only in Burma, but in neighbouring countries. I am glad that the Indian Government have taken initiatives to provide assistance to the Burmese people, although the current Burmese military regime has not accepted assistance and is creating blockages. It is important that the international community should not only take action to overcome the disaster and help the communities affected now, but ensure that political action is taken to bring forward a more democratic system in Burma; otherwise, the Burmese will continue to suffer not only from natural disasters, but from human disasters.
	It is important that the international community should come together to ensure not only that assistance is given to the communities affected, but that the military regime over there is tackled. I am certainly glad to see that the Government have taken initiatives to offer support and will continue to work with hon. Members from all parts of the House to ensure that those people are helped. I will certainly support the Government on that point.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for giving me the opportunity to sum up this debate.
	Outrage has quite rightly been expressed at the climatic disaster that occurred on 2 May, Cyclone Nargis. We have heard speeches of despair and of outrage at what happened in Burma from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb). Last, but by no means least, we heard the brief contribution from the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma). It was very nice to have his support in the debate today.
	Cyclone Nargis was a climatic disaster on a huge scale, the like of which has not been seen since the tsunami of 2004. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, reckons that 1.5 million people have been affected in one way or another, including 1 million who have been made homeless anddepending on whom one believesup to 100,000 who have died in the Irrawaddy delta and the Rangoon region. Anyone who has seen the picturesdescribed in such graphic detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valleyof bodies floating in the water cannot fail to be moved and to feel desperate to help.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury has already made clear, the sad, poor, egregiously repressed people of Burma lived in appalling conditions long before this climatic disaster struck. One third of them already lived below the poverty line, and one third of children under five were already malnourished. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said, 1.5 million oppressed people had already been forcibly moved from 3,000 villages in the Karen region and adjoining states.
	It is hard for us to understand the junta, led by the generals, stopping aid getting in to save its own people. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West made an extremely good point when he said that 10 days had already passed since the disaster, and that disease would spread exponentially if this situation continued for another 15 or 30 days. That is what will happen if we are not careful. The climatic disaster, which was unavoidable, could well be followed by a second, humanitarian disaster, which is completely avoidable. It would be a disaster of hunger, thirst and, above all, disease. Without sufficient medicine, if measles, cholera and other killer diseases start to take hold, it will be very difficult to stop them.
	A plea should go out from the House today to the Burmese generals, to tell them that the aid workers do not want to go into their country for political purposes, and that they want to go in purely for humanitarian purposes. When the Minister winds up the debate, will she tell us exactly what the current position is regarding the Burmese Government's granting of visas? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley pointed out, it is a disgrace that Burmese officials went on holiday for three days to avoid giving visas to NGO workers.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that it makes a welcome change to see the Chinese dealing with their own humanitarian disaster. Their Prime Minister was prepared to go to the site of the earthquake to see for himself what was happening and to reveal to the world what was happening. That is a welcome change from what would have happened in that vast country a year or two ago. I believe that the Chinese are changing. I also believe that they put pressure on the North Koreans to reach some kind of deal at the negotiating table. We know that many North Koreans were close to starvation, so it was not simply an issue of nuclear proliferation; it was a humanitarian issue as well. I believe that the Chinese Government recognised that fact. The fact that that the Chinese Government have, almost for the first time, given $5 million in aid to the appeal in Burma is also a welcome sign. In fact, that sum matches what little the Burmese Government have themselves given.
	I congratulate our excellent ambassador in Rangoon, and thank him for all the work that he has done. I also thank the excellent and experienced DFID team. Of course, a good range of NGOsSave the Children, Merlin, the International Red Cross and Oxfam, among othersare already on the ground, as we have heard. I praise what they have been able to do so far. It is not a question of whether enough money and aid have been given; rather, it is a question of allowing that aid to get into the country.
	Much has been saidnotably by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Banburyabout the responsibility to protect. That doctrine, of course, was designed not for humanitarian or climatic disaster on this scale, but for genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes of humanity. We need to debate very quickly within the UN how to get a UN aid effort into the country, co-ordinating the NGOs and other unilateral and multilateral aid. It would be much better if, instead of bickering over how aid should be got into the country, the generals allowed the UN to take a lead on this subject. I hope that Thailand's Prime Minister and the European commissioner, who I believe are both in Rangoon today, succeed in persuading the generals to open their doors, as it is hard to know how else we shall get a good lead on getting aid into the country.
	However, as the Foreign Secretary has made out, we have to rule nothing in, and we have to rule nothing out. If the right hon. Member for Leeds, West is right, which I suspect he is, disease will become rampant in the next week, 10 days or so. Is the world going to stand by and allow that to happen? I ask the Under-Secretary to clarify what precisely the UN is going to do if that situation develops. She is trying hard to get a UN resolution, which must be the preferred route, but what are the UK Government going to do if, in a week or 10 days' time, we still do not have it? What alternatives will she consider? That is a really important question for her to answer. It is also important that we ask neighbouring countriesour friends, China, India and Association of South East Asian Nations countries, which could put considerable pressure on the regimeto do more. It is wholly unacceptable for these people to be left to die.
	As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said in what I thought was a statesmanlike speech, only a trickle of aid is going in at the momenttwo or three planes a day when what we need, as he said, is 35 planes a day. That is the scale of the aid needed. Will the Minister tell us whether she is establishing any form of forward bridgehead, which has been done in other humanitarian disasters? It seems to me possible for us to establish in some place a forward bridgehead of all the essential supplies rather than have them coming in from all over the world. They should be accessible in one placeperhaps one that is acceptable to the Burmese junta, such as Bangkok. We should consider what more we can do in that respect.
	We also need to consider how to put Burma back together for the longer term. Once again, the right hon. Member for Leeds, West made a very perceptive point about that. Speaking as a farmer, I understand only too well how the sediment of the Irrawaddy basin has been washed away, altering the pattern of rice and other crop growing in the area for a very long time. The ground will become saline for many months to come, so the people will simply not be able to feed themselves. In view of the fact that 40 per cent. of Burmese rice comes from the Irrawaddy delta, a big effort will be required of the World Food Programme to deal with the problem, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) said. We need to think about that now. How can we get a sufficient volume of food in? Assuming that we can solve the first wave of the problem by letting in humanitarian aid, medical supplies and emergency food and water, how are we going to deal with the second ongoing wave and keep the Burmese population alive and flourishing?
	In conclusion, this is a humanitarian disaster that could yet get substantially worse. It is a harrowing experience to watch people die on our television screens every night. We, the UK Government and the world community must summon every effort we can muster from wherever it might come to try to stem this disaster. We have to impress on the Burmese regime that it is in their own and their people's interest to stop this crisis and allow aid in. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how our Government are managing to procure that situation.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Madam Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day, on a Question relating to immigration.
	The Ayes were 51, the Noes were 354, so the motion was negatived.
	I shall also announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day on a Question relating to local government. The Ayes were 240, the Noes were 158, so the motion was agreed to.
	 [The Division List s  are published at the end of today's debates.]

Burma

Question again proposed, That the original words stand part of the Question.

Meg Munn: This has been an important debate, which has attracted a good deal of passion, argument and discussion, because Members rightly feel strongly about the situation in Burma. Their concerns are shared throughout the House, and were expressed extremely well by, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (John Battle), the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb).
	Let me reassure the House that the Government's response to Cyclone Nargis is, and will continue to be, driven first and foremost by the need to provide help for the people of Burma. That means that our priority is the delivery of drinking water, food, shelter and medicine, and it means making every effort to minimise the spread of disease following the initial devastation caused by the cyclone itself. The Government have therefore earmarked 5 million for disaster relief. That is a starting figure, which we will review as more aid gets through, andas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has confirmedit is in addition to aid that Burma is being given on an annual basis, which has recently been doubled.

Richard Burden: Given the scale of the suffering in the Irrawaddy delta, the focus must obviously be on how to convey aid and relief to that area. However, as a number of Members have pointed out today, Burma was already suffering major humanitarian problems affecting hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people and others, many of them in areas not adjacent to the Irrawaddy delta. Can my hon. Friend give some reassurance about the levels of aid and the mechanisms that will allow it to reach those other areas? The spread of disease and other problems there will be equally great in a few weeks, if not in days.

Meg Munn: I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. When I was in Thailand I spoke to people about the aid going to camps on the border. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also visited the area and the camps, and has given a commitment that we will keep the situation under review.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Meg Munn: I need to make a bit of progress.
	HMS Westminster will arrive off the Burmese coast tomorrow. We do not yet know what role the ship and its crew will play in delivering humanitarian aid, but it is sensible to move it closer to where help is needed. Aeroplanes are now arriving with help funded by the United Kingdom Government. The problem is that the Burmese regime is controlling the time at which each international flight can land in the region.
	One MemberI cannot remember who it wasasked earlier about contributions from the European Community. The European Community Humanitarian Office is contributing 2 million, and the European Commission has pledged 5 million. Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain have already made commitments, and I am sure that other European countries will do so as well.
	I think that most Members on both sides of the House recognise that Burma is facing one of the biggest humanitarian challenges since the tsunami. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described the gravity of the situation. We agree that a disaster of this degree requires the attention of the whole international community: individual states, individual NGOs, but above all a United Nations-led civilian mission. We are all extremely frustrated and appalled by the attitude of the Burmese Government in denying the international community's relief workers access to the areas affected by the cyclone. The crucial question for this debate is how, faced with the intransigence of the Burmese regime, we can best proceed in order to help the Burmese people. As the Government have already stated, we are not ruling out any particular action at the moment.

Julian Lewis: On behalf of Members who have been present for all or most of the debate, may I ask why the Government feel it necessary to oppose the Opposition motion, given that there is such unanimity of view across the House?

Meg Munn: If the hon. Gentleman will just wait, I will come to that point.
	We have a desired option: to convince the Burmese Government to think again and open their country to the humanitarian workers who have the expertise to co-ordinate the aid effort. The first duty of any Government is to protect the people whose interests they are supposed to represent. Instead, we hear that the Burmese leadership is refusing even to take the telephone calls of the UN Secretary-Generala Secretary-General who is pledging help. The international community is committed to helping any country, of any size or importance, when its people suffer a humanitarian disaster. The Burmese army simply does not have the experience, knowledge or logistical capacity to co-ordinate a relief effort of this magnitude. Indeed, few countries would have that.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is it not a scandal that in the midst of this crisis the Burmese regime proceeded with its sham referendum? Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a sham referendum, a sham consultative process, and not the kind of action that will build the democratic civil society that Burma needs if it is to be able to deal with the problem it currently faces, and its other underlying problems over the long term?

Meg Munn: I completely agree. We said at the time that the referendum was a distraction. It should not have gone ahead, and the fact that it did gives the clearest sign that that Government are dangerously distant from the reality of what is happening in their country. We have, of course, always had our concerns, but a referendum conducted in those conditions has to be of dubious credibility.
	Let me say a little more about what our Government are doing to persuade and lobby on this issue. We know that preventing deaths through persuading the Burmese authorities to work with the international community to deliver aid and assistance is the best way forward. We point out in all our contacts with the Burmese regime and other Governments in the region that this is a humanitarian situation, and that it is not politicalthat at present we are interested not in the political situation, but in giving humanitarian aid.

John Battle: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Meg Munn: I am sorry, but I need to make progress.
	The crucial factor in any natural disaster is the response of the Government. If a Government care, make plans and organise a response, people will survive; if not, they will die. That is why we continue to back the plan to persuade the Burmese Government to provide unfettered access for aid workers, whether through the UN or through countries in the region, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West has said. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown and the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik), are in the region seeking to persuade people there. We are convinced that the most effective way to deal with this tragedy and to save lives is to persuade the Burmese authorities to accept the help coming from the rest of the world, and to do so through intensive and urgent diplomatic activity, and particularly through targeting countries with influence over the regime.
	China has been mentioned, and it is in a key position both to influence the Burmese regime to open up and to facilitate practical support on the ground. China has publicly called for aid to be let into Burma, but it can do much more to persuade Burma to allow more international workers on the ground and direct distribution of aid to the delta region. The Foreign Secretary spoke to his Chinese counterpart yesterday, pressing on the subject of the regime's unacceptably slow response. China and other UN Security Council members have been asked by the UK to discuss the serious situation in Burma.
	The Association of South East Asian Nations Foreign Ministers will meet on Monday, and we have been lobbying them to help improve this situation and to put pressure on Burma to increase the number of visas granted. There has been some increase, but not as much as is needed.
	The Opposition raised the issue of a forward bridgehead. We have discussed with countries such as Thailand what they can do to address such issues. I do not want to spend too long on the subject of air drops, which has been discussed. We have not ruled anything out, but I think that hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), have set out the problems that might result. The scale of the disaster requires a full international civilian operation, like the ones we saw after the tsunami and the Pakistan earthquake, and for that we need the co-operation of the Burmese authorities. That must remain the principal focus of our efforts.
	The responsibility to protect was raised by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South in particular. There is no doubt that the Burmese Government have a responsibility to act now to help save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Burma's people who are suffering after the cyclone. As we have said, we rule nothing out. We will continue to argue vigorously in New York for UN Security Council engagement.
	Let me be clear why we tabled our amendment. It focuses on what we are seeking to achieve:
	to secure access and ensure aid is delivered to those in need.
	That is why the amendment should be supported, and I ask the Opposition to consider the matter carefully. The motion risks suggesting that the UK will pursue the responsibility to protect above all else, rather than our actual focus, which is on any means that will secure the outcome that we all seek.
	Unfortunately, the situation for Burma remains extremely grave. A great deal is being done by international organisations, our ambassador on the ground, the Department for International Development and non-governmental organisations, and we must all place on record our thanks to them. However, until there is a response from regional actors and ASEAN putting pressure on the regime, we will not get the outcome that we want to see.
	There has been a great deal of agreement in this debate; everybody wants to see the Burmese Government open up their country so that help for the people who desperately need it most can get through. I ask hon. Members to support our amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
	 The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 252.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker  forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes with horror the devastating impact of Cyclone Nargis upon the people of Burma; recognises the vast scale of humanitarian assistance needed urgently to prevent further loss of life; is appalled at the unacceptably slow pace at which the Burmese authorities have so far allowed in international expertise for the relief effort, and at their lack of capacity to distribute aid to the affected areas; calls upon the Burmese authorities to allow immediate and unfettered access for both the delivery of aid and for its distribution inside Burma; strongly welcomes the UK Government's initial 5 million pledge to the relief effort for emergency items; strongly supports the UK Government's exchanges with key international partners in order to bring about a concerted international effort for access for humanitarian assistance; in this regard, welcomes the visit to countries in the region by Ministers from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; urges countries in the region to increase their efforts to persuade the Burmese authorities to allow in unfettered international assistance and to ramp up the delivery of aid; and strongly supports continued efforts of the United Nations to secure access and ensure aid is delivered to those in need.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Philip Hammond: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern the increases in Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) imposed in the Budget; notes that between 2006 and 2010 revenues from graduated VED will have more than doubled; observes that the majority of motorists who currently pay graduated VED will now pay more; deplores the Government's decision to abolish the exemption from higher graduated VED rates for cars that emit more than 186g of carbon dioxide per kilometre and were registered between March 2001 and March 2006, and the fact that this was not stated clearly at the time of the Budget; considers that these changes will hit those on low incomes hardest and be a further burden on hard-working families already struggling to cope with soaring living costs; further notes that, although graduated VED revenues will total 4.4 billion by 2010-11, carbon emissions from motoring are expected to reduce by less than one per cent. as a result of the new VED regime; believes that any increases in environmental taxes should be offset by tax reductions elsewhere; and calls upon the Government to abandon its planned increases in VED.
	With the greatest respect to the Financial Secretary, we are disappointed that yet again the Chief Secretary has not been deployed to defend the Government's policies. Perhaps she is too busy working on plans to undo them.
	The Chancellor's Budget is unravelling before our eyes. The purpose of the debate this afternoon is to give it another little shove. Yesterday we witnessed the unprecedented spectacle of a Chancellor coming back to the House of Commons just 10 weeks after a Budget to unravel his income tax proposals for the current year. I remind the House that we had already seen major U-turns on the taxation of capital gains and on non-domiciled UK residents, where the Chancellor conjured up 550 million that he does not have to buy off criticism of his inept handling of those two measures.
	Yesterday we saw an unprecedented emergency mini-Budget, with the Chancellor wielding the nation's credit card yet again to buy his way out of trouble with a temporary fix for the ghastly mess that he had inherited from his predecessor, in the form of the doubling of the 10p tax band, making 5.3 million low- earning families worse offwith another 2.7 billion that he does not have.
	So we are making progress. We have established that the Chancellor can rewrite his Budget, even though he said that he could not. We have established that he can make in-year changes, even though he told us that it was impossible. We have established that the long-accepted principle that major tax changes are announced only in Budget or pre-Budget reports has been scrapped, and that the Chancellor can in fact reverse taxation policy whenever it is convenient and politically expedient for him to do so. Let us look this afternoon for the next candidate for a U-turn.

Martin Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Conservative policy on vehicle excise duty is also unravelling before our eyes? Some eight months ago we had a quality of life policy document from the Conservatives, which was launched in a hail of publicity in September 2007. It proposed that the increase in the vehicle excise duty differential between the top and bottom bands of emission performance be capped at a maximum of 500. A few months later we have on the Order Paper a motion that goes in exactly the opposite direction. Whose policy is unravelling?

Philip Hammond: It is the Labour party's policy that is unravelling. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the document that he cites was a report to the party from a policy review body. It was never accepted as policy of the Conservative party. It is a menu, it contains some valuable ideas, and in due course my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) will announce to the public which of those policy areas he wishes to adopt as Conservative policy for the next general election, always bearing in mind the constraints within which we will operate and the mess that we will have to tackle when we assume office in a year or two.

Jim Devine: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we will not hear the Conservatives' alternative economic strategy in this debate?

Philip Hammond: I always find that it is best to get all the Whips' questions out of the way early. So far, the only new ideas that the Government have had on taxation policy have been those that they have stolen from the Conservative party, so I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that, if we do not announce a stream of new policies over the next few months, the locker will be bare when the Chancellor makes his pre-Budget report in November or December.
	I was suggesting that we should turn our attention to the next candidate for a Budget U-turn, but there are not many policies left on which the Chancellor has not backed down. However, one more needs his urgent attention in this new-found listening climate. The Chancellor will have noticed that 18 Labour Members have signed the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), which calls on the Government to reconsider the changes announced in the 2008 Budget to vehicle excise duty, which will take effect in April 2009.

Martin Salter: rose

Philip Hammond: I believe that the hon. Member for Reading, East is one of those Labour Members

Martin Salter: It is Reading, West, which is the preferable part of the town. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the early-day motion criticises not the thrust of the policy but its retrospective nature? That is the nub of the debate.

Philip Hammond: To Conservatives, Reading is Reading, and it is a very sweet word.
	I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about the early-day motion, but I accept that he wished to draw attention to the retrospective effect of the changes that the Chancellor proposed. Indeed, the thrust of my argument will be about the retrospectivity element. It is not the only problem with the changes, but it is the biggest.
	Helpfully, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley explained in the Newcastle paper  The Journal his reasons for attacking the VED changes. I shall not try to do the accent, but he said:
	It's like the 10p tax, it's going to hit the poor. I don't know where we're going hitting the working man at every corner.
	The hon. Gentleman is right, because for many, driving is a necessity not a luxury. That is easily forgotten by metropolitan policy makers living in an area served by the country's best public transport infrastructure. Even in such circumstances, Ministers demonstrate every dayand I do not criticise them for thishow for some people, because of their job, a car is a necessity, even for the shortest journeys.

Angus MacNeil: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the metropolitan understanding. I come from a rural island constituency and I know that many people have large vehicles. They are certainly not Chelsea tractors, and are often second-hand and not in the best nick. Those people will be badly hit, and they are already paying 1.35 a litre for diesel. One suggestion I made during consideration of the Finance Bill was that if someone was in receipt of the single farm payment it should put them in a particular category, so it would be easy for the Government to charge them a different level of duty. Even if the Government intend to pursue the main thrust of the policy, exemptions can be made.

Philip Hammond: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I suspect that I should not revisit the details of that debate, although the Conservative spokesman on that issue did suggest that we have considerable sympathy with the thrust of the Scottish nationalists' argument. However, he also drew attention to some of the serious practical problems with that solution.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is not this yet another example of politicians saying that they are in favour of environmental policies and green taxation in general, but when it comes to the particular, finding a reason why a policy is not any good? This week, American scientists have pointed out that the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are 40 per cent. higherhigher than anyone expected. Have we not got to get serious and get real and all of us, across the parties, recognise this and act on it?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes what on the face of it is a fair enough point. I will come shortly to the specific issue of the environmental effects of the policy, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on me again at that point, I will be happy to take his intervention.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend reflect on what he just said, because I do not think that the last intervention was a fair point at all? Has he seen the study by Professor David Newbury of Cambridge university, which concluded that if motorists were to pay the cost of the effects that they have on the environment, they would be paying tax at the rate of 20p per litre of fuel, yet motorists are paying tax at 65p a litre of fuel? Therefore, there is no justification on environmental grounds for these vehicle excise duty increases.

Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend makes an equally fair point. I think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) was seeking to say that changes to environmental taxes at the margin, whether or not the overall burden of taxation is justified, might be expected to have a beneficial environmental effect. I shall seek to show in the course of my remarks that that is not the case, even on the Government's own figures. It is only right to invite the hon. Gentleman to come back once I have set out my case.

John Redwood: Is my hon. Friend of the opinion that the Government expect to get more revenue out of this, that it is a tax-raising device, and that that shows that they do not believe that it will work, because if they are getting more revenue it means that people will still be buying the larger vehicles?

Philip Hammond: The Government clearly expect to receive substantially more revenue from these changes, but I shall come to the environmental benefits issue shortly.
	Encouragingly, we also heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), sowing the seeds by taking up the opportunity of the Chancellor's announcement of his climbdown on the 10p rate to inquire when he will announce a climbdown in respect of vehicle excise duty. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman sees himself as assuming the mantle of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in relation to an issue that I predict will become an equally big problem for the Government in the not-too-distant future.
	Hon. Members who are perhaps uneasy about the Chancellor's vehicle excise duty policy should not be disheartened by any protestations from the Treasury Bench that we may have heard or that we might hear later on today that there will be no turning back, that the line is fixed, that the measures are right and will be implemented in full, because that is precisely what the Chancellor said about the doubling of the 10p income tax rate until he was forced into a humiliating U-turn by a combination of public anger and panicking Labour Members.
	The message from the Chancellor's and the Prime Minister's conduct over the 10p rate to those on the Labour Benches who have already spotted this time bomb ticking away under their marginal seats for next Aprilsuch as Reading, as I am helpfully reminded is that no matter what the protestation of inflexibility, the Government are now for turning. Let us be under no illusion. The measures announced by the Chancellor on vehicle excise duty in the 2008 Budget are a ticking time bomb under his successor for 2009, just as surely as his predecessor's 2007 Budget was primed to explode under him.

Angus MacNeil: I note that this matter will come to a head in 2010, just when we expect to have the next general election. I heard the cheering when the Chancellor made his announcement on the 10p income tax, but I imagine that the situation in 2010 might be very different. Only five Back-Bench Labour Members are present today, but by 2010 there might be 50 or even more.

Philip Hammond: By later on in 2010 the Labour party might struggling to muster five. The hon. Gentleman has suggested a Machiavellian proposition that I must confess I had not thought of. Perhaps the Chancellor's swingeing increase in vehicle excise duty is set up so that he can abolish it in 2010 just before a general election and get the same kind of reaction that he was obviously hoping to achieve yesterday. I will leave such Machiavellian considerations to members of the Scottish National party.
	The announcement in the Budget speech on vehicle excise duty was significant enoughthe creation of a new and complex regime of vehicle excise duty with 13 bands, raising the duty payable on many family cars, and all of it dressed up as an environmental measure aimed at gas guzzlers and nothing whatever to do with filling a bankrupt Treasury or taxing ordinary motorists. That was the clear message.
	As far as the measure's green credentials are concerned, in fact, the percentage increase in duty on a Nissan Micra is larger than the percentage increase on a six litre Hummer or a Porsche Cayenne. In truth, this is an old-fashioned revenue-raising measure. At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, the Chancellor has hit them with a more than doubling of VED between 2006-07 and 2010-11, from 1.9 billion to 4.4 billion. That is at a time when the average motorist is already contributing more than 1,800 a year on average in tax.
	Vehicle excise duty on a Ford Mondeo estate, whether owned in Worcester or otherwise, will go up by 32 per cent. between 2007-08 and 2010-11. VED on a Renault Espace, a largish family car, will increase by 43 per cent. That is bad enough when taken at face value, without having to read between the lines. Conservative Members have become wearily resigned to the fact that the Budget Red Booklet alone the Budget speechnever tells the whole story, but the Treasury has plumbed new depths of cynicism with its presentation of the VED changes. The Red Book assures its readers on page 96:
	As a result of these reforms, the majority of motorists will be better or no worse off in 2009.
	What it did not say was that, because of the unannounced reversal of the exemption from the highest bands of VED announced in the 2006 Budget for vehicles registered before March 2006, more than 1 million families will see their car tax double over the next two years.
	We have only discovered the truth because my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) looked at the numbers and the Government's rhetoric and realised that, even by their usual standards, there was a gap. Between 2006-07 and 2010-11, graduated VED is shown in the Government's figures to rise from 1.9 billion to 4.4 billion, more than doubling in four yearsan increase that she realised could not be accounted for by the announced changes alone. She discovered through a series of parliamentary questions that that unexplained increase was accounted for by an unannounced stealth tax on existing cars registered before March 2006, which, but for their age, would be in band G now and which are heading for bands L or M in the new system.
	Thanks to my hon. Friend's forensic accountant-trained mind and her fierce tenacity, and to the momentum generated by the campaign launched by  The Daily Telegraph, the truth, kicking and screaming, has finally emerged into the light of day and is beginning to penetrate the public consciousness. The Treasury now admits that the statement in the Budget Red Book was
	not as clear... as it could be.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman talks about a gap, yet the Conservative motion talks about off-setting by tax reductions elsewhere. Where are the Conservatives going to get that money from, because that certainly would be a huge gap?

Philip Hammond: I will make a deal with the hon. Gentleman. When he comes here and tells us where the Chancellor has got the money from to back down on capital gains tax and on non-domiciles, and to fund his U-turn on the 10p tax rate, then we will explain it to him. He can jolly well answer the question.
	The public and Labour Members woke up to the problem of the 10p rate only when the increase was upon us. We hope to do Labour Members a favour through today's debate and ensure that the response on vehicle excise duty is a bit quicker becauseI stress to Labour Membersthe sooner one defuses a bomb, the less danger one is in.
	By 2010, 81 per cent. of the 19.6 million cars that pay graduated vehicle excise duty will pay it at a higher rate than now. That means that four out of five motorists will lose outsome 12.5 million losers will be worse off as a result of a change, which was presented as a tax on gas guzzlers that would benefit the majority of ordinary motorists. I stress the figure of 12.5 millionfar more than twice the number of losers from the disastrous decision to scrap the 10p income tax band. For at least 1 million of those losers, the cost will be at least 220 a year of extra VED by 2010, and 3.7 million motorists will lose 90 a year or morenot far off the average loss from the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

Richard Burden: The hon. Gentleman is being expansive in his criticisms of the Government's decision. I understand that he is not in a position to say precisely what his party would do if it was preparing a Budget. However, what is the strategic framework within which he would consider VED or other duties? Does he believe that VED should play any role in incentivising or disincentivising customer choices when buying cars? Does he believe that fuel duty should play any role in combating climate change? If so, what is that role? If not, what does he suggest instead?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have made it clear that we believe that green taxes have a role to play in changing behaviour. However, if he reflects for a moment, he will realise that VED can play such a role only in respect of cars not yet purchased. I shall develop the argument that there is a problem in imposing that tax on the existing stock of cars because people are effectively locked into decisions that were made many years ago.
	Conservative Members believe that green taxes have a role to play, but if we want to carry a sceptical public with us, we must make it clear that they are introduced for environmental reasons and are not disguised stealth taxes. Politicians should acknowledge the public's scepticism. It is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney has committed himself to a ring-fenced family fund, into which the proceeds of additional green taxes will go. It will be audited externally and used to reduce taxes that are otherwise paid by families. That is the only way in which to retain the public's confidence and get them behind the green taxation agenda.

Bob Spink: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman mentioned losers. Does he accept that many losers will be disabled people on low, fixed incomes? I received an e-mail from one of my constituents today who must drive a large car to accommodate his wheelchair. He is deeply worried about how to afford the tax. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that we must find a way of ensuring that such people are protected?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right. I expect that we shall hear examples from several hon. Members of constituents whom the measure will disadvantage.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Hammond: Perhaps I will hear one now.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He makes a compelling case against the increases in vehicle excise duty. Is not the position worse than he outlined? At the same time as the increases, the Government are leaning on and forcing many local authorities to consider introducing road charging in city centres.

Philip Hammond: Indeed. Furthermore, if my right hon. Friend goes to Nottingham city centre, he will see that parking charges have been introduced. My right hon. Friend is right: the motorist is under assault from many directions.

Mark Lazarowicz: rose

Philip Hammond: I want to make a little progress. I said that I would give way to the hon. Gentleman again, and I will. However, in view of his earlier intervention, perhaps he will let me make the environmental point; I will then give way to him.
	Let us be clear: the abolition of the pre-2006 exemption for older vehicles that would otherwise fall into higher VED groups is nothing but a cynical, revenue-raising stealth tax. It is a retrospective measure that cannot affect behaviour as a prospective measure might. Its burden will fall disproportionately on the poor, who are more likely to own older cars; on those in rural areas, who are more likely to own higher-rated vehicles; and on those with large families, who are more likely to have bigger cars.
	There is a double whammy for those caught in the trap. Industry experts have confirmedit has been in all the major papersthat these VED rises will slash the value of older cars that fall into the higher bands. CAP, a data provider to the used car trade, says:
	When people find out that it could cost half a car's value just to tax it each year, its value will plummet. Many of these cars...will be reduced to their scrap value. The sad thing is that perfectly usable cars will be scrapped...Poorer families who need a bigger car to transport children...will find their car has lost up to 1,000 of its value. They face an impossible choice because many will struggle to pay the higher road tax but won't be able to afford to buy a more fuel-efficient car with a lower road-tax rating.
	In other words, those people will not be able to respond as the economic model worked up in the Treasury predicts, because they will not have the money.
	There is a long-standing bar room joke, which I am sure all Members will have heard from time to time; it seems to come around every time there is a surge in petrol prices. It is something about doubling the value of a car by filling its tank. The combination of a doubling, in some cases, of vehicle excise duty and the slashing of the capital values of larger, older cars means that sticking an annual licence disc in the windscreen will literally double the value of some cars. Even medium-sized cars will be severely affected. Data from CAP show that a Hyundai Lantra 1.6 litre automatic registered in 2001 has a trade value of 850. Under the new vehicle excise duty regime, that car's road tax will increase to 430 a year in 2010.
	Here is the rub: far from changing behaviour and encouraging lower carbon output, this measure will lock low-income families into the worst possible position. By reducing the capital value of the vehicle that those families own, the Chancellor will trap them in what is effectively the motoring equivalent of negative equity. They will be unable to change their vehicle because its value will have collapsed, yet they will be forced to pay the Chancellor's punitive taxes to stay on the road.
	I should like to quote one of the many e-mails that we have received. This one is from a motorist in Merseyside:
	Many of us are stuck with the car we have. Those who drive older cars are in the main the retired or low-income groups. The arrogance of the remarks
	that is, the Chancellor's remarks
	suggesting if we don't want to pay the tax we should buy another car is beyond belief. We can't afford another car. Please don't let this one go, I can tell you people are furious about this, it's on a par with the 10p tax. This can bring Gordon down. He knows it's the low-earners who will be hit and it doesn't deter him.
	I could quote many more examples showing the anger and frustration felt by owners of larger, older vehicles, who see themselves being trapped for ever by this stealth tax into paying higher taxes and being unable to escape because of the erosion of the value of their vehicles.

Rob Marris: As has been adverted to, I have been concerned about this issue for some time. It has nothing to do with the forensic skills of the hon. Gentleman's accountant friend, the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening); I raised the issue in the Finance Bill debate. The retrospective nature of the measure is clearly in table 8A of the Red Book. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the issue is about future behaviour. That is why two years ago, I tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill to put up vehicle excise duty substantially for future purchasers of new gas guzzlers. The hon. Gentleman's motion says that
	any increases in environmental taxes should be offset by tax reductions elsewhere.
	It behoves him to say a little more about that. In terms of the taxation that we raise, the idea of ring-fencing is very dodgy, because we need to spend money from taxation on adapting to climate change. The Government are already doing things with general tax revenue, such as building up coastal defences, increasing flood defences, work on wildlife habitats, and so on. Ring-fencing green taxes for green issues is not a simple position to take.

Philip Hammond: There is a germ of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says. In an ideal world, one would not hypothecate. The reason we have taken the step of deciding, in effect, to hypothecate additional green taxes to reduce taxes on families is simply to respond to the high degree of public scepticism about this agenda. The public are sceptical about things that the Government have done and, more broadly, about politicians now claiming to be raising green taxes when, time after timewe have another example before us todaythe public are really facing an ordinary stealth tax to fill the Treasury's coffers. That is why we have taken this exceptional route of ring-fencing and auditing the additional proceeds.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I will make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, and come back to him in due course.
	The reality for many poorer families is very far from the Whitehall theory of the Chancellor's Budget statement that the new VED structure will encourage drivers to choose the least polluting car. Many Labour Members and, indeed, many Conservative Members will recognise how divorced that concept is from the reality of the everyday lives of many of their constituents. Oh, my car tax has just doubled, so I'll get rid of the car and nip out and buy a nice little economy model from the showroomthat is not how people's lives work. The Government will tell us, I am sure, that this is all about encouraging green behaviour. Perhaps they would like us to take a more strategic view. We know, after all, that this Government are prepared to take tough, long-term decisions and accept the short-term political pain that they get from ignoring the anger of the poorest when they lose out from Government policies. The Government have clearly demonstrated that when they say that a line in the sand has been drawn, that line in the sand has been drawn. Perhaps they would argue that a little bit of pain is worth whileeven, perhaps, if 1 million or so owners of older vehicles are placed in the impossible position of being unable to trade up to a more environmentally friendly car, or if 80 per cent. of motorists are faced with higher VED alongside the higher costs of petrol, food, household energy and everything else. Perhaps the Government will say that it is all worth while in order to reduce the impact of vehicle-based emissions on our environmentthat it is the right thing to do.
	Unfortunately, however, that generous interpretation that image of a resolute, principled Government determined to press on with what they know to be right in the face of short-sighted oppositionis fatally undermined not only by the short-term political manoeuvring that we have become used to as the Prime Minister twists and turns to try to save his own skin, but by the Government's own figures on the impact of the measure. In a written parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney on 21 April 2008, the Treasury first claims that the 2008 Budget reforms of vehicle excise duty are forecast to result in a rising carbon saving over time, and then admits that the changes are forecast to deliver a reduction of just 0.16 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020. To put that into context, total vehicle-based emissions of CO2 were estimated at 120.3 million tonnes in 2006the last year for which figures were available. The expected benefit of this measure, as set out in the Treasury's written answer, is a less than one seventh of 1 per cent. reduction in vehicle-based carbon emissions over a 10-year period. Even taking into account not all vehicle emissions but car emissions alone, the saving is less than one quarter of 1 per cent. The Chancellor's claim that Budget 2008 reformed VED to strengthen the environmental incentive to develop and purchase fuel efficient cars is blown away by his own figures predicting almost no positive environmental impact at all.

Angus MacNeil: Is not the whole global argument shown to be bunkum when we cross the Irish sea, and see that in the Republic of Ireland it costs 20 to fill the tank of the average family car? The current price of fuel per litre in the Republic of Ireland is lower than it was here a year ago. I would like to ask the Conservatives whether, if they were in power, they would revoke the proposals of the current Labour Government on vehicle excise duty.

Philip Hammond: On vehicle excise duty, we believe that the Government must go back to the drawing board. They must go back to square one, take a blank sheet of paper and think the proposals through again. This is not the way to go forward.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman's argument as to why the increase in VED has little environmental benefit is remarkably similar to the argument we sometimes hear from Government Front Benchers as to why a few airport extensions are no bad thing because the effect is only minimal.
	Leaving that aside, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he raises important points, but if he is wants people to accept that his party is not just trying to jump on the bandwagon, he should at least make suggestions as to how we can bring down vehicle omissions more substantially. It is only fair to ask him to do that because if he just simply attacks this policy, while at the same time attacking congestion charging, car park charges and so on, we return to the point that politicians talk green in general, but when it comes to the particular, they oppose any specific policies.

Philip Hammond: What we have to do if we want to carry the public with us is show that any green tax proposal has an environmental benefit. There must be a correlation between the burden that we are imposing on taxpayers and the benefit that we are generating for the environment. The restructuring of vehicle excise duty fails that test, suggesting that it will save 160,000 tonnes of CO2 by 2020 in exchange for the imposition of a huge increase in vehicle excise duty on ordinary families throughout the country.
	Ultimately, the Chancellor's fig leaf has been blown away, exposing yet another plain, old-fashioned stealth tax. The vehicle excise duty structure will leave most drivers worse off; it is dressed up and presented as a green measure and presented with all the self-righteous pompousness that the Government reserve for such matters. It is a tax hike that, according to the Government's figures, will have virtually no impact on CO2 emissions, it will undermine further the public's confidence in the principle of green taxes and it will reinforce cynicism about the real motives of politicians talking about the green agenda. In other words, it is a measure that will damage, not enhance, the environmental agenda in this country, which is why we have made the pledge to ring-fence the proceeds of additional green taxes in order to reassure the public that green taxes are just that, not eco-stealth taxes.
	We have long known that the Government do not care about rural Britain. The 10p tax fiasco confirmed that the Prime Minister does not care about low-earning families. This cynical tax hike hits poorer families and rural areas hardest; it is a metaphor for new Labour's tax policy. At a time when familiesand not just families on the lowest incomesare feeling the squeeze, when earnings are stagnant and prices are soaring, and when people are looking to the Government for a helping hand, the Government's response has been to kick hard-working lower and middle-income families through another major stealth tax rise that is set with a delayed fuse, timed to go off next April, with an aftershock the following April when the final increase for older cars kicks in.
	This is the worst kind of stealth tax introduced at a time when families are least able to absorb it, and it has been introduced in an underhand way. The Chancellor has shown that where the political cost of an ill-thought-out tax measure is high enough, he can and will reverse it without regard to the niceties of Budgets and pre-Budget reports. It is up to those of us on both sides of the House who see the unfairness of this swingeing, bogus green tax increase, which disproportionately affects the poorest and which will set back the cause of genuine environmental taxation, to get the Government back to the drawing board on their plans for VED. On the evidence so far, the way to do that is not by quiet argument, rational analysis of the weakness of the proposals or an appeal to the long-term interests of the country, but by encouraging public awareness now of what will otherwise be next year's 10p tax debacle. That is because short-term political cost and benefit seems to be the only currency that this short-term Prime Minister deals in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should announce to the House that the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister has not been selected.

Jane Kennedy: It is a pleasure to speak for the Government and to follow the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) in this debate on vehicle excise duty. He presented a robust case for the prosecution, as is his wont, but I am delighted to have been invited to present the defence case.
	I am responding as someone who has always enjoyed driving, appreciates the freedom that a car can bring and values the contribution that motor vehicles have made to our economy. However, I do not subscribe to the view that Labour is anti-motorist and that the Tories are the motorist's friend. We have learned from the hon. Gentleman today that if the Tories took office, they would repeal the measure. We noted that they voted against the measure in the votes on the Budget. I also invite voters and drivers to be aware that he dismissed the policy document to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) referred, to which I shall turn in a moment, as merely a policy discussion document, from which policies may be drawn at a future date, when a manifesto is drafted.

John Redwood: Does the Financial Secretary not recognise that I also chaired a policy review that made a lot of proposals for lower taxes? Why does she not refer to those as Conservative policy? The truth is, of course, that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make their decisions near the election. However, she grossly misrepresents our policy work if she does not refer to my work in favour of lower taxes.

Jane Kennedy: I have not been able to refer to any policies yet, but the right hon. Gentleman merely confirms the point that I was making.

Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is being unnecessarily bashful? We regularly refer to the excellent document that he produced denying climate change and trashing the green credentials of his party leader. He should be given a wider hearing, and it is my right hon. Friend's job to ensure that he is.

Jane Kennedy: I could not have put it better myself.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for giving way, because I cannot allow what the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) said to stand without comment. There has been absolutely no trashing of either my party leader or the need to have greener and cleaner vehicles, but we want to encourage people, rather than clobber them.

Jane Kennedy: There we have it. I am always happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but sometimes think that when he is in a hole, he should not dig any harder.
	Overall, the Government's policies have had a palpable effect on the manufacturing of cars and lorries. In 1997, there was only one flat rate of VED for all drivers. In 2000, we decided to graduate VED, ensuring that the drivers of the most polluting cars paid the most road tax. That was fair then and it is right to maintain that position now. It means that VED reflects the car's emissions, as well as creating incentives for people to drive cleaner cars and supporting the development of such cars.
	Manufacturers such as Jaguar and Land Rover, to name just two, which produce high quality cars at the excellent Halewood plant in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara)

Rob Marris: And the west midlands.

Jane Kennedy: And in the west midlands. Such manufacturers have responded to the pressure that purchasers are bringing to bear. They acknowledge that if they are to maintain their competitive edge, they have to continue to develop their product and engineer cars of high quality, but with an ever reducing impact on the environment. Just as technology has helped to achieve huge improvements in vehicle performance and safety, the motor industry is now addressing the greatest challenge yetthat of delivering environmental solutions.

Albert Owen: The Minister will know that I have made forceful arguments about giving manufacturers incentives to make their cars more energy efficient. Car use is absolutely essential for everyday living for many families in my constituency, and they are already burdened by paying extra fuel duty at the pump. The extra charge required for cars purchased between 2001 and 2006 will be yet another burden. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that certain areas of the country seem to suffer a double whammy when it comes to running cars?

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge the force with which my hon. Friend makes his case today. Indeed, he has made that case consistently and we will listen to the points that he makes. I shall come to the question of fuel duty in a moment, if he will allow me to make some progress.

Angus MacNeil: Given that there have been U-turns in the Treasury recently, has consideration been given to the possibility of a U-turn on this issue?

Jane Kennedy: I shall come in a moment to the point that was raised earlier, which was characterised as the burdens on motorists and the cost of fuel. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress so that I can reach that point, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn (Albert Owen) would like me to address the point that he has raised.

Philip Hammond: I should like to follow up on the points that have just been raised. In the context of responses that the Minister and her colleagues have made in the past, will she confirm that the Treasury keeps all taxes constantly under review?

Jane Kennedy: I make that point so often that I felt that it hardly needed repeating, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I want to move on to the points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mn made about the costs that they described as a burden on rural drivers. I will come to that in a moment.
	The Stern review concluded that urgent action was needed now to offset the most serious impacts of climate change. A challenge on this scale requires all sectors, including road transport, to make urgent and substantial progress in reducing CO2 emissions. In the long term, and possibly by 2050 in the developed world, almost complete decarbonisation of road transport is a possibility.
	When I was elected in 1992, the Conservatives were in government. I took part in a debate at that time on a White Paper, promoted by the Government, entitled New Opportunities for the Railways. My hon. Friends will be interested to learn that that was a euphemism for privatisation. The debate was held on 29 October 1992, and in it I confessed to being a confirmed motorist, albeit
	a motorist with a very uneasy conscience; one who uses her car knowing full well what damage that causes to the environment and the congestion that it causes in cities.[ Official Report, 29 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 1215.]
	I have at least been consistent in the intervening years. Before I became an MP, and then a Minister, I was alive to the effect of cars on the environment. That is precisely the position that many motorists are in now, as they choose which car to purchase.

Roger Williams: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Kennedy: I should like to make some progress, as this is a short debate.
	As I have said, VED was charged at a flat rate at that time. Everyone paid the same road tax, whether they drove a clean car or a polluting car. Indeed there was little choice, in many ways, as there was no such thing as clean diesel or cars capable of burning biofuels. The then Government put in place something called the fuel duty escalator. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) was advising Chancellor Lamont on this matter at the time. The escalator delivered, year on year, a 3 per cent. increase in fuel duty above the rate of inflation. We abandoned it in 1999; as a result, current fuel duties have been raised.  [Interruption.] This is part of the context of the debate and it is right and proper for me to reply to the questions I have been asked. We abandoned the fuel escalator in 1999 and, as a result, current fuel duty rates are 50.35p a litre. Had fuel duties gone up in line with inflation since 1999, they would be 61p a litre. Had they gone up in line with a 3 per cent. escalator, they would be 79p a litre. If we add in VAT, the average price of petrol would be 34p higher today.
	The Conservatives are trying to sell the idea to voters in Crewe and Nantwich that they are on the side of the motorist, but the right hon. Member for Witney has not told those voters about the new Tory taxes, including the 10 per cent. showroom tax on new cars and up to 500 VED, as we have heard, on older cars. This is not yet rubber stamped as Tory party policy, as we have heard, but I believe that voters and drivers should take note. The man in charge of writing Tory transport policy, Stephen Norris, has said that under the Tories,
	you will pay more in green taxes, you will, for example, see the re-introduction of a fuel duty escalator, I'm quite sure.
	He said that on Radio 4's World at One on 31 August 2006.
	We have heard a great deal since the Budget about the impact of these changes, particularly the claim that low-income families will pay more. I would like to tackle that head-on. About 40 per cent. of low-income households that own cars bought since 1 March 2001

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Kennedy: I will give way when I have finished my point. I am responding to a point that the hon. Gentleman made in the debate.
	As I was saying, about 40 per cent. of low-income households that own cars bought since 1 March 2001 have tended to buy cars in the current band C. Those car owners will be better off as a result of this year's Budget changes, as their VED will fall from the current 120 to either 90 or 110 in 2009.

Philip Hammond: The Minister said that she wanted to tackle this issue of VED head-on, so why does the Government amendment not mention VED even once?

Jane Kennedy: We were disappointed that the amendment was not selected. We consulted the House authorities yesterday. What we tabled in the Prime Minister's name last night took the views of the Table Office into account. The amendment was in order, and I am now responding

Philip Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I not right in thinking that if the amendment had been in order, it would have been selected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not necessarily.

Jane Kennedy: I withdraw the comment about it being in order [Interruption.] Well, let me return to the substance of the debate. Interested as we may be in those arcane arguments, I believe that the public are interested in the subject of the debate.
	As I said, I reject the case of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.

John Redwood: rose

Jane Kennedy: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to return to the main point?
	As I have said, 40 per cent. of low-income households that own cars bought since 1 March 2001 have tended to buy vehicles in the current band C. Those car owners will see their vehicle excise duty fall from the current 120.

John Redwood: Will the Minister give way on that specific point?

Jane Kennedy: I have reached the same point again. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I am going to make some progress.

John Redwood: Does not the Minister recognise that if the emissions are between 141 g and 150 g in band C, there will be no reduction at all? She should not imply that there will be any reduction.

Jane Kennedy: I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman again. He really should let me get to the point that will specifically address his comment. Many drivers of family cars will be better off as a result of these changes. That applies to 24 of the most popular 30 models of cars in the country, including popular versions of the Ford Focus, Renault Clio, Vauxhall Astra and the Citroen Xsara Picasso. It is true that drivers of other versions of those models could pay more. The point of these changes is that motorists can reduce their VED by choosing a cleaner version of their preferred model, or a cleaner car of the same class, if they do not want to change to a cleaner class of car altogether. Encouraging a market in which drivers can exercise their choice does not mean that they must purchase a different type of car. According to the King review, the average driver could reduce his emissions, and of course his fuel bills, by 25 per cent. simply by choosing the most efficient car in his preferred class.
	Over the years, since coming to office in 1997, the Government have been responding to the genuine concern expressed by the driving public as well as the travelling public about the damage that motor vehicles do to the environment. Human, social and economic costs arise from unmitigated climate change. Before the debate, I discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) the flood damage that regions such as his have experienced, and the imperative necessity for revenues to build flood defences.

Justine Greening: May I briefly return the Minister to her comments about band C cars? The parliamentary figures that she gave me suggest that by 2009-10 most cars that are currently in Band C will move to band F rather than bands D and E. Owners of cars in bands D and E will pay the same or less, while those with cars in band F will pay more. That means that most band C drivers will pay more.

Jane Kennedy: I do not accept the hon. Lady's point, forensic though she may be. Most drivers will not be worse off in 2009-10. In fact, we expect about a third of drivers to be better off. The point of our proposals is that they will influence drivers' behaviour and choice of car.

Roger Williams: rose

Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jane Kennedy: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will give way to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) first.

Roger Williams: The Minister has made a good case for a graduated system of vehicle excise duty, particularly for people who can choose which vehicle to drive, but people in some categoriesespecially small business peopleneed a vehicle of a specific size in order to carry on their trade, and the retrospective part of the Government's proposals will be particularly damaging to them. Does the Minister not recognise that this is really an attack on small businesses, and on people who are trying to start and build on their businesses?

Jane Kennedy: Perhaps I could respond to the hon. Gentleman's point together with that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West.

Martin Salter: I haven't made it yet.

Jane Kennedy: I was about to invite my hon. Friend to do so.

Martin Salter: I thank the Minister. It is a similar point. The Minister rightly spoke of allowing people to make choices in order to cut their vehicle excise duty by 2010, but that was predicated on the assumption that people would have enough money in their family budgets to change their cars before 2010. Many of the people whom the Minister and I represent do not have that disposable income. That is the nub of the problem.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend and others are presenting a strong argument, and I hear what they say. The package that we presented in the Budget, and which I am explaining todayin defence against the attack by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who claims that the Opposition are the motorist's friendspecifically seeks to influence purchase choices when they are made. We already know that that is the way in which the market is moving.

Rob Marris: May I gently suggest that a better way of changing behaviour would be to introduce a prospective rather than a retrospective tax change, and to introduce not a showroom tax but something which I must say in all humility that I suggested three years agoa three-year lead-in for new vehicles and the most gas-guzzling and vehicle excise duty of, say, 2,000 a year, so that people thinking of buying a car of that kind would know what they were doing? Furthermore, such a level of vehicle excise duty would substantially hit its resale value and influence prospective purchasers of new vehicles, whereas a showroom tax is such a small proportion of the price of those gas guzzlers that it is unlikely to have much effect on the purchase decision.

Jane Kennedy: I have been listening very carefully to the points that my hon. Friend and other Members have been making about retrospectivity. As Members know, this will be legislated for in the Finance Bill of 2009, so there will be ample time for us to discuss the issue on many occasions before then.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made a point about small businesses. Small businesses using vehicles are no different from other users of such vehicles. I hear his point, but many families also have no choice in that they need a car to travel to work or to school. I do not believe that we ought to have a specific measure to help people in small businesses.
	It has been claimed that moving existing cars bought after 1 March 2001 into the new VED bands in 2009 is some form of stealth tax. As has been pointed out, the Budget statesthis quote comes from page 121 of the Red Book:
	With effect from 1 April 2009...VED for cars, registered on or after 1 March 2001, will be reformed to include six new bands.
	There is not a lot that is very stealthy about that. How stealthy can it be, given that we are debating it today and Members raised it during the debate on the Budget and in Committee of the whole House? Indeed, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West make his point on the matter in his usual forceful and thoughtful way in that debate.

Philip Hammond: So what did the Treasury official quoted in  The Times mean when she said that this could have been clearer?

Jane Kennedy: The Budget was very clear that the measure includes existing cars, as is normal for VED changes. What I agree could be clearer is that cars bought between 2001 and 2006 and emitting more than 225 g of CO2 per km will not be placed in higher bands straight away in 2009, but that change will be staggered over two years. That staging means less of a rise for drivers of existing polluting cars next year. This cannot by any means be described as a stealth tax.

Sammy Wilson: Will the right hon. Lady accept that, although she says that the measure was made clear in the Budget, when the Chancellor referred to it he suggested that the majority of drivers would be no better or worse off, and did not mention the fact that millions of drivers would be paying between 50 and 90 per year more?

Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was right to say that the majority of drivers would be no worse off, as I too have said in my speech this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman's point is not valid, because my right hon. Friend was accurate.

Justine Greening: rose

Bob Spink: rose

Jane Kennedy: I want to make a few more points before the Liberal Democrat spokesman makes his contribution to the debate.

Bob Spink: rose

Jane Kennedy: I know that I have not given way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is a short debate and there must be time for Back-Bench speeches.
	May I finally turn to the current costs of motoring? We understand, of course, the pressures that the current high petrol prices are putting on motorists.

Bob Spink: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Jane Kennedy: Very well.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way; she is being characteristically charming. Does she agree that there is a competitive disadvantage for British hauliers compared with those from the European mainland, and has she considered making foreign lorries pay for using UK roads and for the environmental damage they cause, by means of what has been described as a Brit discanother UK Independence party policy?

Jane Kennedy: No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, although he makes his point in his usual entertaining way.
	We do, of course, understand the pressures that the current high petrol prices are putting on motorists. Those prices are being driven by high global oil prices. Fuel duty has fallen by 16 per cent. in real terms since 1999, and the cost of motoring has fallen in real terms by 11 per cent. since 1997 and by 13 per cent. since 1999. I understand, as representations are being made on the matter, that it might not feel like that to motorists, but we have to respond to the facts as they stand. I know that road transport underpins our way of life in the UK. It is a key enabler of the economy, and it helps families to make essential journeys to work and school. The key challenge that we face is to support increases in road transport use in a sustainable, environmentally responsible way.
	At this point, I feel that I should say a word or two about the debate that took place last week on the Finance Bill. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) sought to explain how the Liberal Democrats would find 50 billion from environmental taxestaxes on behaviour damaging to the environmentto fund a reduction in income tax from 20 to 16 per cent. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was there, so he will remember that it was an entertaining sitting. The hon. Member for Taunton singularly failed, in half an hour of his contribution to the discussion, to explain how his party would raise that 50 billion, and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge did not challenge the figure.
	What I find striking is the similarity between the position that the Liberal Democrats took in that debate and the position that the Conservatives have taken in today's debate. These vehicle excise duty changes are forecast to save 1.3 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020. The incentives that they create will contribute to the projected increase in the total number of cars in bands A and Bthe cleanest bandsby 650 per cent. by 2020. It is important for parties that come to this House to make a case such as the one that has been made today to demonstrate responsibility in their actions when considering such measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has said on a number of occasions, they should not fail, whenever the responsible position is put, to support the need for green taxes.

Albert Owen: The Minister is right to point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives' motion, because they have not identified where they would tax elsewhere to fund the reductions that they propose to make. I do have a meeting with the Chancellor, and I have raised the issue of rural areas with him before. My area was crippled by the fuel escalator under the Conservatives, but now that there has been an increase at the pump, is it possible for the Treasury to examine ways of considering rurality when it deals with fuel duty and other such measures in future?

Jane Kennedy: The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, whose policy area this is, has greater oversight of the detail on the other ways in which the Government are working internationally to ensure that every step is taken and that the overall package of measures that seeks to reduce damage to the environment is a balanced one.

Adam Price: rose

Jane Kennedy: I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion, because I have been speaking for a long time.

Philip Hammond: rose

Jane Kennedy: On a point of fact, I shall give way one final time.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister, because she did say that it was important for hon. Members to act responsibly on these matters, and she also told the House that these measures would produce a saving of 1.3 million tonnes of CO2. That is not a terribly large figure, but it is at odds with the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) received from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, which stated:
	Budget 2008 reformed the VED structure to strengthen the environmental incentive to develop and purchase fuel-efficient cars. The reforms take effect from 2009-10 and 2010-11. They are forecast to result in rising carbon savings over time as the number of low carbon cars significantly increases. In 2020 the changes are forecast to deliver carbon savings of 0.16 MtCO2.[ Official Report, 21 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 1676W.]

Jane Kennedy: There is no difference whatever. The figure of 0.16 applies to 2020 only. The cumulative effect between 2009 and 2020, which is the figure that I referred to, will be 1.3. I believe that the package of measures that we have put forward will have the effect that the Government intend. Drivers will be incentivised to buy cleaner versions of their preferred model. As I have said, drivers of 24 of the 30 most popular cars in the UK will pay less or no more because of the Budget.
	These are important changes for the environment. The Opposition motion distorts the position while remaining silent on their proposals for climate change, just as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge remained silent on that subject during his speech. Motorists should be wary of the Opposition's words. The motion is not worthy of support today.

Vincent Cable: I approached the Conservative motion in my usual constructive way and found things in it with which I could agree. I agree that the change for existing vehicles was not introduced with great clarity. I am sure that it is in the Red Book, but not too many British families sit around reading the Red Book in the evening to find out what will happen to their taxation. I also agree with the Conservatives that it is wrong, in terms of retrospectivity and the social consequences, to attack existing vehicles rather than new vehicles. That principle is clear. I also agree with the basic approach that such is the lack of faith in environmental taxes that any future changes have to be included within a package that is offset against other forms of tax. I agree with the motion on those three key points.
	In parenthesissince the Financial Secretary chose to have a go at my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), who is not hereI am not sure what she meant by the reference to a 50 billion package. The package that I crafted, which has gone through our party conferences and has been published, would cost about 20 billion. The basic principle behind it was that we would want to cut taxes on hard-working familiesI think that that is the expressionand that it would be funded by a combination of environmental taxes, increased capital gains taxes and the removal of some of the reliefs on high earners. People might not like the politics of it, but the numbers were fully checked out by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Indeed, I presented a copy to the Prime Minister, and since he proceeded with the cut in income tax, he may well have read part of it, although he did not follow up my advice on how to raise the revenue.

Jane Kennedy: Let me make it absolutely clear. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) suggested that the cost would be 57.5 billion over the years and asked the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) whether he could make it clear
	what environmentally damaging things he would tax to find 57.5 billion.
	The hon. Member for Taunton replied:
	I can indeed. Let me give the Committee a few examples. [Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 6 May 2008; c. 9.]
	He then gave the example of removing higher rate tax relief on pension contributions, but failed singularly to bring forward any other measure.

Vincent Cable: I think that I understand the mystery. Twenty times three is fairly close to 57I think that that is where the Financial Secretary has got her number from. Of course, the environmental measures were a combination of aviation taxationI think that even the Conservatives are fairly sympathetic to the point that aviation is under-taxedand various specific proposals on VED. The environmental measures were clearly spelled out, costed and independently audited. I do not know why the Financial Secretary has a problem with it.
	Let me return to the Conservative motion. Although I agree with elements of it, I disagree with the final phrase, in which it
	calls upon the Government to abandon its planned increases.
	As I understand itI might have misunderstood the legislationthe measures went much further than the changes for old vehicles. Was there not a package of measures that involved a new scale and a new structure for dealing with new vehicles? One can pick holes in particular details, but it seemed to me that much of that was reasonably sensible.
	I ask the question that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) asked earlier, as it was exactly right. What is the strategic framework within which the policy is located? If the Conservatives are attacking the retrospective taxation of old vehicles, do they go along with the argumenton which, until now, I thought there was a reasonable degree of consensusthat the differential for new vehicles should be widened? That view was not only set out in the quality of life policy group report, but argued on a cross-party basis by the all-party Environmental Audit Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). I think that many Conservative Members subscribed to the idea. The highest rate would have been of the order of 3,000, which is substantially more than the Government are proposing. I do not know whether that idea is being disowned or criticised now, but I always understood that the Conservatives supported it.
	My second, related question is whether the Conservatives are questioning the whole basis of the idea of graduated VED as it relates to the environment. If graduated VED does not workand there is a perfectly sensible, empirical debate to be had on whether it will workwhat other signals could be used? There are other options. We could use more petrol duty, or road-user pricing. Do they want to shift the emphasis on to those options? There are of course problems with all those things, but VED probably involves fewer problems than some of them.
	Are the Conservatives questioning the principle of using market incentives? That is what taxes are about: the use of a market incentive to change behaviour. There are peoplenot just environmentalists, but tough business peoplewho argue that we need to stop pussyfooting around with market instruments and should just get on with regulation. My former boss at Shell, Mark Moody-Stuart, was recently on the radio saying, Let's stop all this silly nonsense about environmental taxes. It's all involved in giving money to the Government. We need draconian controls on vehicle emissions, and if car manufacturers cannot make cars with sufficiently low emissions, they will go out of business. You might want to toughen things further by tightening MOT controls, so that old vehicles simply go off the road. That is much tougher and nastier to people who own old vehicles, but that draconian approach would be the alternative to using market instruments. I do not know whether the Conservatives want us to move more in that direction or less in that direction, but that is the question that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, asked earlier. It is exactly the right question, and I have not yet heard the answer.
	We got a hint of the answer when the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) got a little carried away in a response to one of his colleagues, and started telling us about the motorist under assault. Most of us are motorists, and of course most of us are concerned about rising costs, but the concept of the motorist under assault needs to be examined a little. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave us a bit of a clue when she talked about real costs, and the overall cost of motoring in comparison with other modes of transport. What she said was quite true: in the past 10 years, the real cost of motoring, including everythingthe private costs as well as the different types of tax costshas fallen by 10 to 11 per cent. The cost may have increased in the last yearI do not think that those figures include the effects of petrol increases last yearbut the figures are fairly neutral. Certainly the real cost has not risen in the past decade.
	By comparison, in real terms, the cost of trains has increased by 6 per cent., and buses by 13 per cent. If we take a 30-year perspective, car costs have fallen in real terms by 10 per cent., and train costs have risen by more than 50 per cent. If we compare costs, it simply is not meaningful to talk about motorists being under assault, unless we mean the day-to-day irritation of higher fuel costs. In terms of the incentives structure, the system clearly remains heavily geared against public transport.
	Before I say a little about my approach to the specifics of VED, it may be useful if I give a bit of historical context. It is often forgotten that vehicle excise duty was one of the many creations of the 1906 Liberal Government and of Lloyd George. He introduced it with two provisos, which were subsequently forgotten. First, he was very keen on graduated VED. It was to have been graduated by horsepower. That was not because of global warming, but there was an awareness, even then, of environmental costs. However, his recommendation that VED be graduated was subsequently forgotten. That is how VED was introduced.
	Lloyd George also recommended that the receipts from vehicle excise duty should be ring-fenced. He was very conscious of the way in which the Treasury absorbs revenue, and specifically recommended that it should be set aside in a separate fund, which ultimately became the road fund.
	The second historical point to which it is worth drawing attention is that in 1978 the vehicle excise duty almost disappeared, because the then Labour Government argued strongly that it was a bad tax. They wanted to get rid of it and convert it entirely into petrol duty. The serious analytical point that was made at the time was that if they did that, it would save emissions and fuel use, on a one-off basis, of about 10 per cent.
	VED was saved for the nation by the Conservatives, who felt that it should not be abolished. They thought it was a good tax with all kinds of secondary advantages, including tightening up on the enforcement of insurance, so they kept it. That is why we have the debate today. The tax has gone a lot further since then, with the introduction in 1998 of environmental differences. Those are its origins, which are somewhat strange, one might think.
	In conclusion, I shall run through some key points in the motion, which require some attention from the Front-Bench spokesmen on either side. I begin with a simple factual question; it is not a policy point. I do not know the answer to it. In the motion the Conservatives imply that the introduction of differentiated VED has very little impact on CO2 emissions. They say that there will be a 1 per cent. reduction. That may or may not be true. It may be what the Government are saying. Is it true? What is the evidence?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman may have heard the exchange earlier with the Minister, when we appeared to be in dissension, but as the right hon. Lady confirmed, we were saying precisely the same thingthat the expected change over 10 years as a result of the measure is less than one seventh of 1 per cent. of CO2 output.

Vincent Cable: If that is true, ceteris paribus and ignoring other considerations, it is an extraordinary conclusion and it goes completely contrary to all the experience that we have had. I am interested and intrigued. If that is the case, we will need to rethink the policy. If it does not work, what is the point of continuing with it?
	The evidence of the past few years is that differentiated VED produces substantial changes. Even over the past six years, the number of vehicles in the A, B and C groups has increased from 19 to 36 per cent., and the number of vehicles in the higher rangeE, F and Ghas fallen from 58 to 37 per cent. Not all of that is necessarily environmentally driven, but it is suggested that that is what has been going on.
	The Carbon Trust, which advised the Environmental Audit Committee, produced remarkably high elasticities for the impact of vehicle excise duty on consumer choice. If all this is wrong, it is important that the Government present the analysis. All parties need to rethink what they are doing. There is no point in blindly pursuing a strategy that is not working. May we have the evidence and the basis on which the policy was arrived at?

Rob Marris: When the hon. Gentleman looks for the evidence underlying the changes to which he referred, I suggest that he examines the taxation regime for company cars, which changed markedly in those years and was a driver when prospective purchasers of company cars looked at what the income tax effect would be, perhaps more than the vehicle excise duty effect.

Vincent Cable: That may be part of the argument. In the opposite direction, I saw a study produced by the Environmental Transport Association, reporting that 42 per cent. of all motorists planned to switch to more environmentally friendly cars at their next purchase. That may be tax driven; it may be ethically driven. We do not know. Clearly, there is a mood to switch, and I do not believe those wholly negative results, but I believe in science and I would be interested to see where they came from.
	On the policy, I agree. There is nothing much to add. The arguments against taxing existing vehicles are strong, in terms of both fairness and the underlying economics. There is no need to labour the point.
	One question that the Conservative spokesman did not raise, which is worthy of mention and often posed by the farming community, is how we deal with the specific problems of working vehicles. The NFU argues that it can produce a workable definition of working vehicles. It is a technical point, but if it can do that, we should try to exempt them. There is no point treating real tractor-type vehicles on the same basis as Chelsea tractors, which would defeat the objective of the policy and undermine agriculture, and there is clearly work to be done on that point.
	If we are looking to the longer term, both for the reasons that have been advanced in this debate and more generally, there is a strong argument for moving away from vehicle excise duty as the main instrument to attempting to change behaviour on the roads. Road-user pricing is probably the best long-term replacement, and my party supports that view. I shall not hold my breath, because I wrote essays on road-user pricing when I was an undergraduate 40 years ago, and it still is not with us. It has real problems of technology and privacy, but the technology is now much more advanced and I would welcome progress in that direction.
	I was surprised that neither of the two speeches so far referred to the technological change required to produce the switch to low-carbon vehicles. We can play around with prices and taxes, but if the technology does not advance, we are unlikely to achieve very much. Fifteen years ago, I helped to produce scenarios for the oil company for which I worked, and we knew then that low-carbon emission vehicles were available. All the elements were in placelight materials, more efficient engines, more efficient batteriesand that was why the company did not anticipate some of the high prices that we have seen. It assumed that high growth in China and India was entirely compatible with relatively low oil prices because we would see all those energy-efficient vehicles on the roads, but it never has seen them. It has been a slow process and I wonder whether the Government should now consider some of the regulatory steps that need to be taken to push the revolution along faster.

Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman is making a typically thoughtful speech. Given that he agrees with some of the elements of the Conservative motion, but has problemsas I dowith the last clause, will he join the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight?

Vincent Cable: I was not inclined to do so, because of the aspect that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and it is interesting to hear further contributions on that subject.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman talks about regulation and the context in which motor manufacturers make their engines. I am sure that he knows about the EU directive that we hope will be in place by 2012 to regulate the emissions allowed from the tailpipes of cars, reducing them to 130g of CO2 per kg. That is a significant stretch for current technology, but that is the regulatory context in which policy has to be set.

Vincent Cable: That is a helpful additional factual point. If we are to round off this discussion properly, we have to have some concept both of the targets for introducing new technology and the monitoring and enforcement of it. All those different elements have to accompany the tax changes, otherwise they will have no effect.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have about 40 minutes left for contributions from Back Benchers. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Richard Burden: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). Some of what I intend to say takes up the themes that he articulated. Like him, I was disappointed to get to the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) no wiser about the Conservatives' proposals, as opposed to their criticisms. That is a shame, because VED raises real and complex questions about how we should deal with motor vehicle taxation. If we are honest, what we should all be trying to do is to reconcile a range of competing and often contradictory pressures and considerations.
	How do we frame policies that ensure that the production and use of motor vehiclesnot much has been said about production, but it is part of the issueplay their part in meeting the challenge of climate change? In doing so, we must also recognise the strategic importance of the UK motor industry and the specific aspects of the automotive industry in which we excel. That is sometimes an uncomfortable matter in a debate such as this because we are often talking about niche production, performance engineering and luxury car production, and how to ensure that the industry is not undermined. That also applies to jobs outside manufacturing but in the automotive industry, whether in retail, after sales and the used-car market.
	How do we incentivise drivers to use their vehicles in a more environmentally sensitive fashion and how do we improve public transport alternatives to inappropriate car use? How do we persuade people that environmental performance is an important factor to be considered when they buy a new car or a used car?
	How we do all that is a complicated issue, particularly when we have to feed into it the issue of ability to pay, particularly at a time of rising fuel prices globally, and how to recognise that for some people, whether in their work or where they live, owning or driving a car is not a luxury, but an essential component of mobility for themselves and their families.
	The first issue to consider is that the increase in the number of VED bands in the Budget was generally welcomed across the board, a point that has not received much attention so far today. That was welcomed in that it delivered a less blunt instrument for classifying the environmental impact of different models in terms of influencing customer choice. The review led by Professor Julia King at Aston university in Birmingham talks about other ways in which the tax disc could be used to incentivise different forms of behaviour. For example, tax discs could be colour coded to show much more clearly the environmental performance of different vehicles. There are also lessons to be learned from experience gained from the colour coding of the results of crash testing regulations.
	I have some particular concerns that I hope the Exchequer Secretary will address when she replies. The first is the new car/used car issue, on which I will strike a slightly different note. I worry about the so-called showroom tax that is to be paid on less fuel efficient cars bought from new. There is a year-on-year increase in fuel efficiency for virtually every new model. This year's model will be more fuel efficient than the same model produced last year, the year before that or the year before that. To increase the tax on a model simply because it is new, could have the perverse impact of making it more expensive to run even though it is more environmentally efficient than an older model. For the same reason, in principle there is not much logic in the argument that particular vehicles should be exempt from the taxation consequences of their performance simply because they are three or four years old if the objective is to incentivise different forms of driver and customer behaviour. It does not address the issue of ability to pay and the ability to buy different carswhich are real issuesbut to say on environmental grounds that cars should be exempt because they are older does not stand up to close scrutiny. However, we must be careful in terms of the ability to pay. We must also be careful about the impact on residual values and on the used car market, which is an important part of the industry.
	I am not sure that VED is the best way of incentivising or disincentivising driver and customer behaviour because VED is not related to use. If someone has a 1,300 cc car and they do not keep it well serviced, but use it every day, even for the shortest, most inappropriate runs, their impact on the environment and on CO2 will be greater than if they had a niche sports car of the kind in which the UK excels, although most of us cannot afford such cars, and took it out only on rare occasions. Therefore, it seems that we need to relate incentives and disincentives to issues of use, not simply to issues of ownership. The hon. Member for Twickenham is right: that probably means doing something with fuel taxes or relating some form of road user charging to the environmental performance of models. I cannot think of another way of doing it. Those are the issues that the Conservative party must deal with if it is serious about using green taxes and including motor vehicles in that approach.
	I would like to make some suggestions. One is on VED. The King review talked about colour coding to establish and to make clear the environmental performance of cars. We could also look at how to use VED and the tax disc to link up and to promote the use of public transport and the use of a particular car. There are lessons from the use of the Oyster card about whether buying a tax disc could also provide the individual with a passport to public transport as well as being applicable to the individual car. That is an area we could look at.
	It is right that rigorous regulation requiring industry, including the motor industry, to improve performance should be important to the general debate on the environment. Indeed, the motor industry has done a lot already. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders' sustainability report shows what has been done in production processes and in the recycling of vehicles, as well in terms of the performance of vehicles themselves. However, if we introduce regulation, it must be logical. That is why I hope that we will continue to keep a close eye on some of the EU regulations currently being shaped that enable manufacturers that produce lots of models, some with quite poor environmental performance, to be subject to fewer penalties, as long as they also produce other cars that have smaller engines. Such would be the impact because those penalties are measured across the car fleet of the manufacturer. A penalty is imposed on manufacturers not for producing less fuel efficient cars, but for being a smaller company producing less efficient cars. In other words, a company such as Fiat, the Italian company that produces Ferraris, would be hit less under that regulation, unless certain safeguards are built in, than Aston Martin, a British company based in the UK. Why? Because Fiat owns Ferrari and Aston Martin is an independent company. That would be the only difference. That is illogical.
	At present the Commission is proposing an exemption threshold for companies producing fewer than 10,000 vehicles per year. Below that they would be exempt from some of the penalties. I know that the Minister and the Government are pressing for the retention of that exemption. I say hold firm on that oneit is important to the British niche vehicle industry.
	Unfortunately, that exemption on its own does not meet the needs of another important British company: Jaguar Land Rover, on which thousands of jobs depend in my region in the west midlands and the north-west. It will face big penalties as a result of those regulations simply because it is becoming independent of Ford and is therefore not part of a bigger group. I ask the Minister to continue to work closely with Jaguar Land Rover to ensure that the EU regulations that come in do not have the kind of perverse effect that I have described.

Angela Eagle: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the Government are aware of the points that he makes and are keeping a close eye on the progress of discussions about the development of EU regulations in Europe. We are committed to getting down to 130 kg of carbon dioxide emissions per kilometre, but we certainly take my hon. Friend's points on board.

Richard Burden: I am grateful for that clarification.
	I want to make two final points. The first is about the exemptions for classic cars. Although it is not a big issue in the overall scheme of things, it is important to the people involved. Classic cars are environmentally inefficientcars produced many years ago did not perform well environmentally. Most classic cars are hardly usedthey are taken out on high days and holy days to shows and exhibitions. Their tax treatment is illogical because they have to be in a specific age range if they are to be exempt from vehicle excise duty, which is related to a particular date. When the regulation was first introduced, there was a sliding scaleif a car was more than 25 years old, it would be exempt. The amounts of money involved and the nature of the classic car movement mean that we should revisit the matter and revert to a sliding scale of 25 years rather than picking an arbitrary date in the 1970s.
	I want to consider technology, which the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned. We need to get further ahead of the game in promoting vehicles' environmental performance. We need to redouble our efforts in areas in which we are already strong to make the UK a world leader in automotive-related transport and environmental technologies, whether for cleaning up diesel further, doing more with lightweight materials for use in vehicles, the use of intelligent vehicle systems or getting the mass production of fuel cells closer to reality. If we are to achieve that, and much has already been done, the Government must play their part.
	If Conservative Members agree with environmental taxes in some circumstances but believe that they should be ring-fenced to reduce other taxes, do they rule out extra Government investment in those useful environmental objectives? A range of Government programmes already try to incentivise companies to invest in environmental performance, research, development and so on. I would like the proceeds of transport-related environmental taxation to be used not simply to reduce other taxes but to invest in the very things that will enable us to combat climate change as far as we are able. Conservative Members need to reconsider that point. Do they want to use environmental taxes only to reduce other taxes or do they want to invest in the technologies that I described? If the answer is the latter, they must find the money from somewhere.
	I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary that we are doing much but we can do more, and I urge us to do more if we are to meet the challenge of climate change and allow the motor vehicle industry to play its full part in doing that.

John Redwood: The Government made an odd decision to produce a policy that masquerades as green, but that, on their figures and admission, will make almost no contribution to their green objectives, while taking much money from motorists, especially those on lower incomes and owners of older cars that are less fuel efficient.
	What do we know about the proposal? We have learned in the debate that the best that we can say for it is that there might be a saving of one seventh of 1 per cent. of total carbon after the full effect of the measures has been felt. That is well within the rounding error or scope for mistakes in estimating. That is presumably the Government's best case, so we must assume that the worst case is that there will be no improvement. That seems borne out by the other forecast, which we are more inclined to believe: that the tax revenue will more than double as a result of the proposals. That shows that most people will continue to own their older and less fuel-efficient vehicles and have to pay the tax. It shows that there will not be a huge change in the variety of vehicles that people buy new; a lot of people will opt to buy the less fuel-efficient vehicles because they like such vehicles, which may suit their purposes and be necessary for people's businesses or the terrain over which they will be driven.

Bill Wiggin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Redwood: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way. Other colleagues wish to join in this very short debate, and it would not be fair on them. My hon. Friend knows that I am normally very happy to give way.
	The position is that there will be a colossal tax hit on people for no good green purpose. We have to conclude that on this occasion this is not a green tax, but a way of raising revenue. What is so sad is that all those who believe that the way to change behaviour in an environmental direction is to use taxation are building a strong feeling out thereon the doorsteps that we all saw in the run-up to 1 May, and on doorsteps in a by-election area that one could mention. People are saying that this measure is a cynical ploy by the Government and a new way of taxing us. There will not be any great green good as a result; the taxes are being used as an excuse.
	I urge the Government, at this relatively early stage in the crisis that will undoubtedly occur in the next few months, as people realise what the issue is about, to think again. Not only are they very likely to have to back down because the politics of the proposal are so badthey will feel that in the marginal constituenciesbut they will discover that the proposal is bad for the green cause that they claim to espouse. The Government do not make proposals to curb their own carbon footprint by going a bit easy on the air conditioning and changing the heating systems in their offices. They do not make similar proposals on very old trains and buses, of which we have all too many in this country and which are heavy, fuel inefficient and do a lot of damage. Yet the motorist is always involved.
	Why is that? It is because the Government have worked out that most people need a car, as they do not live on top of a railway station and do not have access to bus routes to all the places to which they wish to go. Most people need a car because they need to take things to work or carry their tools or equipment around when they are working. A lot of people need a car to take their children to school because it is the safest and easiest way and they then use it to go on to their own place of work, fitting everything into those difficult one or two hours early in the morning.
	If Ministers wish to show that they have any connection with the world in which their constituents live, they should understand that the car is not a luxury but a working necessity for most people in this country, other than the privileged few who live in central London where there is good public transport. Ministers should understand that many have to struggle with out-of-date and old vehicles. Such people would dearly love to have new, fuel-efficient modern vehicles such as those that they see around them that belong to the rich. However, they cannot afford to change their cars today, because of penal taxes and the pressures on their incomes, and they will certainly not be able to do so once the swingeing tax increases come in through the proposals for a massive hike in vehicle excise duty.
	Any Government with any political feel or any understanding of how people lead their lives and of the reality of the situation would back off from these proposals now. This Government, of course, usually play silly political games and try to claim that everything is about the Conservative Opposition and not them. That is not how the public see it; the public understand that the Government have the powerthey make the proposals and decisions, and whether our lives are good or not is very influenced by the impact of their proposals.
	It is extraordinary that the only point that the Government have made in the debate has been to ask how the Conservatives would pay for cancelling the penal element of these tax proposals. Well, how are the Government paying for 100 billion of liabilities that they have taken on to our books through Northern Rock? That is never explained. How are the Government paying for the recently announced 50 billion special assistance for the banking industry? That puts us all at risk. How are they paying for the 2.7 billion of tax reductions announced only yesterday to deal with their political difficulties?
	The Government have blown their cover on this argument. They believe that anything can be added to the borrowing requirement; in the past nine months, they have added more than 150 billion to the contingent liabilities and borrowing of this country. How dare they say, then, that the Conservatives could have a problem in wishing to forgo a bit of prospective revenue in 2009-10, based on the laughable assumption that these proposals can stand and that a Government who wished to be re-elected would go all the way in legislating for them and imposing them on people? We have seen how electrifying the impact on the electorate was when the 10p band was taken away and millions of people on low incomes discovered that they were paying for the tax chicanery of the previous Budget. This is almost exactly the samethe only difference is that even more people will experience that hit in the wallet and the pocket-book. They will not need to read their pay cheque to discover what has happened to themthey will physically have to go into a post office or go online to pay this massive and swingeing tax. It will be extremely visible and in your face.
	The Government are trying to pretend that all people with normal cars will not experience any pain, but that is simply not true. In 2009-10, the duty on a vehicle emitting 162 g to 165 gfor example, a Citroen C5will go up from 145 to 175, which is a 20 per cent. increase. On a 201 g to 224 g vehiclesay, a 2-litre saloon for the larger familyit will go up from 210 to 300, which is a whopping 43 per cent. On the really big supercarsthe over 225 g modelsit goes up by only 10 per cent. from 400 to 440. How can the Government argue that that is just or that it makes environmental sense? How can they say that they have any shred of credibility when they whack the people with the family saloon and do not produce such a big increase for the people with supercars who may be a little more tolerant of these large increases in taxation?
	I believe that the way to change behaviour is to offer incentives and encouragement, just as we did to get to rid of lead in petrol when we made unleaded petrol cheaper. This Government are doing it wrong. They are trying to clobber people, and in this case the tragedy for them will be even bigger because there is no environmental gain at the end of it.

Martin Salter: Although I am critical of the Government's proposals, I will not join the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight, as they will not be surprised to hear. That is not just because this is an Opposition day debate but because of the sheer hypocrisy of their position. They accuse the Government's proposals for graduated vehicle excise duty of being dressed up as an environmental measure but solely designed to increase and raise tax revenue, yet when the Conservatives propose precisely the same policy it is apparently the work of environmental visionaries that we should follow and that should lead the debate.
	I do not think that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), for whom I have great affection, has claimed to be an environmentalist, but he has claimed not to be a climate change denier. That rings rather hollow if one reads his blog of 4 April 2008my excellent researchers have fetched it for me. The opening paragraph begins:
	Anyone in power who believes that global warming is happening.
	Those are not the words of someone at the forefront of the environmental movement. I remember the right hon. Gentleman saying, Who believes it's happening?, as if it is not. I remember public quotes from himI have not been able to dig them out so I will have to rely on my memoryabout not being able to identify the 4x4s that are allegedly responsible for contributing to global warming. There is a deep brand of scepticism about the entire climate change agenda in parts of the Conservative party, and we need to recognise that.
	That does not necessarily apply to the leader of the Conservative party, who has been very forthright about the subject. On the Andrew Marr Show on 7 October, he said:
	You can see the very strong commitment to the environment and yes, green taxes, as a share of taxes do need to go up. That's not necessarily popular, but I think it's right.
	He is absolutely rightit is not necessarily popular but it is the right thing to do. The question for the Opposition, if they want to walk the walk and look like a Government in waiting, is this: when will it be the right thing to do and time to come off the fence? At the moment, the Conservative party has an interesting and comprehensive documentI will give it that. It is the quality of life document, which was put together by Zac Goldsmith and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and it has three specific proposals that relate to the matters we are debating. It says:
	It is therefore necessary to be much more subtle in the way we design taxes so that they achieve their ends with the least possible pain...Fiscal incentives for environmental improvement can be highly flexible, applied to industry, as in the case of the Landfill Tax, or aimed at directly influencing consumer behaviour, such as the banded system of Vehicle Excise Duty.
	The Conservative motion, unless I am reading it wrongly, effectively seeks to scrap the banded system of vehicle excise duty. The document goes on to commend purchase tax:
	In contrast, an emissions-related tax directly at the point of purchase would increase the price differential between clean and polluting new cars more steeply. Such a tax could be phased in over time as automakers respond by bringing a greater range of efficient cars to market.
	It then recommends graduated VAT of between 5 and 17.5 per cent. on new vehicles.
	On vehicle excise duty, the document could not have been clearer:
	We recommend more modest changes in VED, aimed primarily at influencing the used car market where annual running costs comprise a larger proportion of total costs. These levels of VED may also lead to slower depreciation rates for cleaner cars, thus indirectly influencing new purchase decisions. On this basis we propose increasing the VED differential between the top and bottom bands of emissions performance, capped at a maximum of 500.
	That 500 figure is considerably more than the Government are proposing. There will come a time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, when the Conservatives will have to come off the fence, grasp the bullet and adopt some policies rather than make interesting suggestions.
	The motion shows that the Conservatives are prepared to will the end but not the means, and I look forward to a time when they come up with clear, substantial and coherent policy. I believe that the motion misses the point. It calls for the abolition of increases in vehicle excise duty instead of addressing the point of concern for those in my party and elsewhere in the country, which is the retrospective nature of the policy. For Labour MPs, it is the retrospective nature of the measures, with the abolition of the 2006 exemption, that is the nub of the argument.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the graded vehicle excise dutyin fact, I was one of the Back Benchers who lobbied for the proposal when I first came to this place. It has made a difference by informing consumer choices. I agree with incentives to make green choices pay. I would go as far as loading purchase taxes quite heavily on new gas guzzlers, with bans of 4x4s from residential streets, if necessary, and higher charges for the most polluting vehicles. I have no problem with incentivising green choices and with making it more expensive to do the wrong thing by the environment. However, I do not agreeand I hope that this came across in the interventions that I and other colleagues madewith denying to the people who can least afford it the opportunity to make an informed and empowered choice in favour of the environment and their family budgets.
	We saw the problems concerning the 10p tax, and we have seen the steps that the Government were rightly prepared to take to put 120 back into the pockets of basic rate taxpayers. Some of the increases in vehicle excise duty rates are in line with that 120 figure; people will certainly be forced to pay 90. It is quite simple to me: we can talk about choice, but choice is always an option for the rich. People on low incomes do not change their car every year or two. They need longer than from now until 2010 to make the changes necessary to cut vehicle emissions without being penalised by higher car tax. I speak as patron of the Berkshire Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Centre, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham will know of. I see constituents of mine and his who scrimp and save to run an old Ford Transit van into which they can run a wheelchair to get the dignity that mobility gives them. Do we really want to hit those people? Do we not want to give people with large families, people on low incomes and people with mobility or disability problems an opportunity to make the informed choice that the time scale currently envisaged in the measure simply does not allow?
	That is why I urge my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to reflect carefully on representations on the issue from people who truly are her friends, because there is time to put things right. There is time to phase in, if necessary, the different bands. There is time to end the retrospective nature of the measures, which is fundamentally wrong.
	My final point is about the public's capacity to accept green taxes. In this cynical age, we should all be wary of destroying the credibility of green taxation as an environmental tool, if the public consider the measures that we propose to be either unfair or unclear. I do not often do this, but I commend to hon. Members a bit of reading from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website, which is a snappily titled document called A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours. It makes depressing reading for those of us who genuinely believe in climate change and who want to lead the public debate and change public attitudes.
	Sadly, only 18 per cent. of the public fit into the category of committed environmentalist. That might be okay when it comes to voting in local elections, but it is certainly not okay when it comes to doing the right thing. What we learn from the survey is that the public are prepared to recycle more, take a tough line against manufacturers that produce excessive packaging and use recycled light bulbs, because they can see that doing so will save them money. But are they prepared to drive less, fly less or be unnecessarily penalised in their pockets? Sadly, they are not at this stage. However, they need to be, and we need to get them there, because climate change is one of the most serious issues facing our planet.
	If we want to undermine the necessary measures in the Climate Change Bill to cut our carbon emissions by 60 or even 80 per cent. by 2050, which we all support, we will do so by being unclear or engendering opposition or a sense of unfairness and cynicism about the policies that we put forward in favour of that agenda.
	In conclusion, let me say this to Conservatives Members. You have been shallow and opportunistic, because once again you have been found out willing the ends, but not the means. But you are not all wrong

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am nothing of the kind. The hon. Gentleman should use the proper language.

Martin Salter: I take your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Through you, I say to the Conservatives, You have been shallow and opportunistic.
	We should accept that there is merit in reforming the proposals. I ask the Government please to reflect carefully on the sheer unfairness of the retrospective nature of the proposals. There is time to make amendments and do the right thing by the environment without hitting some of the people whom we all came into politics to help and support.

Andrew Selous: I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents, a number of whom have been eagle-eyed and spotted the changes that will hit them next April and the April afterwards. They are pretty horrified by the retrospective nature of the changes that the Government have introduced. Hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber have spoken of their horror of retrospective changes. They are not fair, do not enable people to plan properly for the future, and should be avoided.
	Three quarters of my constituents live in the three towns in my constituency. The issue affects not just the rural areas of our country but our urban areas. The employment base in my area has virtually disappeared over the past 15 to 20 years, so many of my constituents need their cars to get to work and to get their children to school. The car is not a luxury item for them. I can think of people who are out of work and who might be offered a job. If the bus could not get them to work on time, they would need a car, and we might prevent people like that from getting into jobs if we set the price of motoring too high.
	There are many good works being done in my constituency, often by pensioners on very modest incomes. There are also people who cook for the over-60s' lunches. They might have to go and get the food and ferry people back and forth in a car that they can only just afford to run. They might not be able to afford to run a car next year or the year after, which could affect those good works.
	I am pleased that disabled drivers have been mentioned in the debate. My own mother had multiple sclerosis, and had to use a rather elderly Renault Trafic van to enable her to get around. I saw the real difference that that made to her quality of life. What a disgrace it would be if our disabled fellow citizens were unable to enjoy that degree of freedom and mobility in the years to come, because of these increases.
	As has already been said, many of us are in favour of the principle of green taxes. We have to change people's behaviour, because climate change is really happening and we need to reduce carbon emissions. However, this is a lousy green tax. By the Government's own admission, it will lead to a reduction in carbon emissions of less than 1 per cent. That will simply store up a lack of credibility with a sceptical public. We know that at least 1 million drivers are going to be forced to pay the higher vehicle excise duty charges. Many of them will not be able to afford to change their car, and some might have to get rid of their car altogether.
	We have said that we want to see much lower carbon emissions from cars. I gather that we want to see a target of 100 g per km by 2030, with graduated reductions up until then, which is excellent. We also need to see more progress being made on technology. I saw in one of the newspapers today that a British company, Modec, is going to manufacture up to 5,000 electric cars in Coventry. Those cars will attract no VED at all. We need more companies like that to lead the technological charge in this country.
	Edmund King of the AA has said that motorists are to be taxed at a higher rate than champagne drinkers. That is a disgrace, when people need their cars. We know that by 2010, 81 per cent. of motorists will be losers as a result of these measures, which have been roundly criticised by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and others.
	Retrospective taxation is not a fair way to proceed. There is broad support across the House for environmental taxation, given the threat of climate change facing the world, but this is not the way to arrange it. There are other ways to raise the revenue that would be forgone by getting rid of these retrospective changes, but this is neither the time nor the place to deal with that issue [ Interruption. ] My point is valid; Labour Members have said that that could be done.

Sammy Wilson: I shall support the motion tonight for two reasons. First, the Minister has said that this is a green tax designed to change behaviour, yet if we look at how it was introduced, we see that it happened without any warning. Furthermore, the Chancellor suggested that the increase in VED would affect hardly anyone, that the majority of people would be unaffected and that there would be nothing to worry about. We now know, of course, that more than 16 million motorists will be affected by 2010.
	If the Government are to introduce measures to change people's behaviour, surely the first thing that they should do is spell out those measures, and their consequences. They should then seek to persuade people to do something different. They should not do that by stealth. We were told that these were taxes to change behaviourbut the way in which they were introduced makes it clear that, rather than behaviour-changing taxes, they were simply a cynical attempt to exploit the hysteria about the role of CO2 emissions in climate change.
	Secondly, the Minister told us that even when these taxes have been made, the impact on CO2 emissions will be very littleless than a fraction of 1 per cent. That is based on the assumption that people will sell their CO2-emitting cars and opt for cars that emit less. That assumption, of course, as hon. Members have pointed out, is based on a false premisethat many of those who own those cars have the ability to sell them and buy a different car. It is quite clear from what hon. Members have said in the debate that many of the people involved are from low-income families and have bought old cars because those are all that they can afford, and large cars because they have families.

Jeremy Browne: rose

Sammy Wilson: I would give way, but I have to finish quickly.
	Those people buy large cars because they require them for their work or their families, so they will not be able to change their behaviour in that way even if they wanted to, and even if they had the economic incentive to do so.
	When we look into the environmental credentials of this tax, it becomes quite clear that it is not about changing behaviour or dealing with climate change; it is about raising revenue. If people believe in high taxation, that is fine, but surely that is not true of regressive taxation that hits the poorpoor or disabled families, poor families living in rural areas, poor families with low incomes who can only afford old cars. For those two reasonsbecause the tax is regressive and because it does not and will not achieve what it is designed to achieveI will support the Opposition motion tonight.

Justine Greening: It is a pleasure to conclude the debate on behalf of the Opposition. We called this debate because the Government have been caught out yet again. They are now planning to pickpocket from the purses of millions of people in our countryand this time that means motorists, many of whom are the least able to afford it. Much of the discussion about who has lost out from this year's Budget has focused on the 10p tax rate fiasco and the 5.3 million households that the Prime Minister was happy to target last yearuntil he was found out.
	Today we have the chance to voice the concerns of millions of other Budget losersthe millions of motorists who are paying graduated vehicle excise duty on cars bought after March 2001. Many of them will see their car tax rise by up to 245 a year by 2010-11. In fact, they may well be some of the people from the 5.3 million households that the Prime Minister and Chancellor stung for more income taxbefore yesterday's spectacular U-turn.
	The story of those motorists and their experience of this Government and tax is almost a case study of Government policy at its worst. It is ineffective, it is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, cynical, and it is also, I think, underhand. The Government's approach to vehicle excise duty was, as ever, What can we get away with? We have seen it in so many areas, but especially in tax. In fact, VED was not really a major part of this year's Budget speech. It would not have been, because it was a tax rise. We were assured by the Chancellor, however, that
	the road tax system should do more to support the use of more carbon-efficiency,
	and that there should be
	an incentive to encourage drivers to choose the least polluting car.[ Official Report, 12 March 2008; Vol. 473, c. 297.]
	Those were the Chancellor's words in this year's Budget speech.
	Behind the rhetoric, however, the Government's real approach to vehicle excise duty is characteristic of their approach to environmental taxation in general, providing another chance to tax people more. I can tell the Minister on behalf of my constituents and the public who have contacted me after seeing stories in various newspaperswe heard about one constituent earlierthat they feel this is a disgraceful way to treat the British public. It is claimed, of course, that this tax will help save the environment. The VED changes can be found in the Protecting the environment part of the Red Book. However, we now know that Treasury officials told the Government that they could expect the policy to reduce motor vehicle emissions by only a fraction of 1 per cent. by 2020. This policy is not about tackling climate change.
	Of the 4 million extra cars that the Government assume will pay graduated VED by 2010-11, guess how many they assume will be in band A? Just 11. The number will rise from 395 in 2008-09 to 406 by 2010-11. I thought the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) put it very well when he said that it would be helpful to understand the assumptions on which the Government have come up with such amazingly and shockingly low figures in describing the impact of the policy on the environment. But, as we know, ultimately the policy was not intended to have an impact on the environment; it was intended to have an impact on Exchequer revenues. These measures were all about bringing in more tax.
	According to page 89 of the Red Book,
	As a result of these changes the majority of drivers will be better or no worse off.
	In my view, that was a real and possibly deliberate misrepresentation of the policy. We now know that when the Government referred to the majority of drivers they meant the majority of all drivers, irrespective of whether they were paying graduated VED. They lumped in all the 10 million extra drivers who do not pay it. They based their statement on the fact that 26 million drivers pay VED, but of those only 16 million pay graduated VED. They used sleight of hand to suggest that people would be unaffected, when that was not the case. That is a bit like the Government saying that they will raise inheritance tax but only 2 per cent. of people will be affected, simply because 98 per cent. of people will not have died by the end of the year.
	When we look at the figures, the position is pretty straightforward. Of the 15.5 million motorists who pay graduated VED this year, more than 10 million will pay more, and 12.2 million will pay more by 2010-11. The people who are worse off include people with family cars such as Ford Mondeos or Renault Mganes, and even people with cars as small as the Nissan Micra. Perhaps most disgracefully of allwe have talked about this a great dealthe people who are worse off also include people who bought cars between March 2001 and March 2006. They never thought that they would be affected by the changes in VED and graduated VED. That is one of the reasons for the sharp rise in VED revenues from graduated VED over the next couple of years. It is due to the Government's abolition of the 2006 exemption, which was obviously introduced specifically to exclude those people.
	Did the Chancellor announce that in the Red Book? No. Did he explain it in the Red Book? No, it was buried in the fine print. As we have heard, a Treasury spokesman eventually admitted that it was not as clear as it could have been. It was not explicitly spelt out that the drivers hit by the backdating of the policy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out in a well-judged speech, would be people with older cars. We know that because those cars are now higher-tax cars, they are worth less second hand. That point was made by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). It is likely to affect people from lower-income families, the elderly and the young, whounlike many othersmay not be able to afford to buy new cars whenever they need them
	The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke of the impact on his constituents. The reality is that the Government are again hitting those who can least afford it, and can least afford to change their behaviour. Ministers know that, because it later came to light that the new backdating of graduated VED would happen over two years because of the transition from band K to band L. That transition was not even mentioned in the Red Book, and emerged only when the Treasury was questioned more explicitly about how the changes in graduated VED could possibly leave so many drivers unaffected. Millions of motorists are suffering a tax increase.
	Having said in the 2007 Budget that band F drivers' bills would increase by, say, 5 a year up to 2010, the Treasury has gone back on its promise and is raising graduated VED massively, in a way that was never explained to people in advance. So the Chancellor is going back on the Prime Minister's word, giving people the mistaken impression that most will not have to pay more, and that they might even be better off, hiding this backdating of the tax from the new motorists paying it, and making no mention of Government efforts to spread the pain of these newly taxed motorists over two years.
	The Government say that this policy is about the environment and motorists changing their behaviour, but as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked, how does the Exchequer Secretary expect the public to change their behaviour when she hides every aspect of these changes in VED from them? The answer is that people are not meant to be able to react to the changes, which is why the Government are not even pretending that emissions will drop as a result of these VED changes in the Budget. This is just another big fat tax hike perversely aimed at the people who can least afford it. It is a double whammy for the motorists captured by the backdating, because not only will they pay more tax, but their cars will be worth less if they try to get out of this tax trap by selling them. It is utterly deplorable to hit those people when their cost of living is rising so much.
	One thing we and the British public know is that this Prime Minister and this Government are never straight with them, and he is not on their side. We are, which is why we are standing up for the public and against this eco-stealth tax brought forward by a Government who are simply out of touchand when voters get given a chance, they will be out of office.

Angela Eagle: I want to start by responding to the myths and distortions the Opposition have been peddling todaythat this is a hidden tax that hits low-income households and family cars. They are wrong on all those counts. The vehicle excise duty changes are not hidden; they are all there in the Red Book for all to see. The Red Book makes it clear that reform of the VED will mean some drivers paying more while others pay less. We have not heard the Opposition mention today that anyone will be paying less, but that is true. Page 121 paragraph A.97 of the Red Book contains the details of the retrospective aspect.
	The changes raise revenue, but it is important to remember that transport spending has increased by 70 per cent. in real terms since 1997, while revenue from transport taxes has fallen by 13 per cent. in real terms since 1999. That is a result of this Government abolishing the fuel duty escalator, which was left to us as a legacy by the Conservative party, and not raising fuel duty every year. Drivers are switching to more efficient cars as well, which reduces revenue, and that is what we want them to do.
	Myth two is that this is a tax rise for most motorists. The reality is that the majority of drivers will be better off, or no worse off, because of the Budget changes.

Andrew Selous: Will the Exchequer Secretary give way?

Angela Eagle: No, I have been left nine minutes in which to speak, so I cannot give way.
	The hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said that the figures for who is better or worse off were based on graduated VED alone. That is not correct; they are based on all motorists. These reforms incentivise people to drive cleaner cars, helping to protect the environment, and they reward people who decide to choose not necessarily a different class or model of car, but often just the cleanest version of the model that they wish to drive. As has been said, drivers of 24 of the 30 most popular cars in the UK will pay less, or no more VED, as a result of these changes. Popular versions of cars that will pay less include the Ford Focus, the Renault Clio, the Vauxhall Astra and the Citroen Xsara Picasso. This is not an attack on the family car.
	Myth three is that the change will hit low-income families the hardest; that has been suggested by many Opposition Members. It will not. Lower-income families are less likely to own a car than the rest of the population; indeed, most of the poorest 20 per cent. of households do not own a car. Moreover, lower-income families who do own a car are more likely to own older cars, from before 2001, which are not affected by the new VED bands at all; that represents one third of all cars in the UK. Lower-income families are not the most likely to buy the most polluting cars because they tend to be the most expensive, because of their larger engines. The majority of low-income families will therefore be either unaffected or better off. This is not a tax rise for most motorists, or a tax rise that hits the poorest, nor is it a tax rise that hits the average family car.
	The interesting thing about today's debate was the announcement by the Conservative party that it will reverse the VED changes that we have outlined. The Conservatives did not enlighten us by telling us how they would reverse the changes or what they would put in their place. That gives no environmental signal or certainty whatever. The Conservatives did say that there would be no environmental taxes from them that did not hypothecate the revenue into a special fund. It seems to me that their environmental credentials are falling apart.

Mark Lazarowicz: Would the Exchequer Secretary clarify the Government's expectation of the CO2 savings from this measure over the period for which we have projections?

Angela Eagle: The Government's expectation of CO2 savings from this measure in isolation is 1.3 million tonnes of carbon by 2020.

Andrew Selous: rose

Angela Eagle: I am finishing my answer to my hon. Friend. Vehicle excise duty will contribute only part of achieving a much greater prize, which is what we can gain if we can manage, by regulation and agreement in the EU, to create a limit of 130 g of CO2 per kilometre for all new cars. If we could manage to do that, it would save as much as an additional 8 million tonnes of CO2 by 2020, which is a prize well worth having.
	I presume that Zac Goldsmith's quality of life paper, which the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said was full of interesting ideas, many of which would end up in the manifesto, proposed a version of change in respect of graduated VED containing bigger environmental signals and higher top rates than the ones that the Government are promising to put in place from 2009 onwards.

Adam Price: rose

Angela Eagle: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he has a particular worry about rural issues.

Adam Price: I am grateful to the Minister. Will she say something about the disproportionate effect that the proposals will have on people in rural areas, many of whom need access to larger vehicles because of their employment in agriculture and other sectors? That point has been raised by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Angela Eagle: We have this debate often. It is very difficult to have a rural or regional view of VED, because it is difficult to define it, and it would be even more difficult to try to police it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some vehicles are exempt and some vehicles use red diesel, which lowers the costs. We are sensitive to the issue, but there are no real easy answers.
	The hon. Gentleman also ought to realise that some 4x4 cars are in lower CO2 bands, and I hope that it will be possible, over time, for people to migrate to using those. Part of the dynamic point of the VED changes is to increase the incentives for manufacturers to make more cars in lower bands. That approach is working, as we have seen over time. As a result of VED changes, there has been a 25 per cent. fall in the number of vehicles that are very polluting and an increase of 33 per cent in the number of less polluting vehicles. So, there are signs that these changes are working.

Andrew Selous: Will the Exchequer Secretary give way?

Angela Eagle: I have two minutes left, so I cannot give way.
	The whole point of the new system is to create choice and to create the incentive for people to change their behaviour. Vehicle excise duty has contributed to the proportion of the least polluting cars rising by more than a third. The number of the most polluting cars has fallen by a quarter, so there are some signs that our approach is working. These changes should be seen as part of a package of measures that support the EU proposal to reduce the average emissions from new cars to 130 g per kilometre, and gain and capture that 8 million tonnes of CO2 savings.
	In conclusion, let me remind the House why we are making these changes. Climate change is not a problem that we can afford to ignore

Andrew Robathan: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	 Question, That the Question be now put,  put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:
	 The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put,
	That at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the names of Sir Stuart Bell and Ms Harriet Harman, relating to the Church of England Marriage Measure, and Yvette Cooper, relating to Banks and Banking. [Liz Blackman.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 111.

Question accordingly agreed to.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful for your guidance with regard to item No. 4 on the Order Papernamely, the banks and banking statutory instrument. I served on the Committee that considered that this afternoon, and I raised a point of order there, too. Surely it is very unusual for a statutory instrument to be considered in Committee room at 2.30 pm and then in the main Chamber in the evening. I acknowledge that the  Hansard report of the proceedings in Committee has been available in the Vote Office for some time this evening, but I doubt that many hon. Members have had the opportunity to read it.
	The problem has been compounded by the fact that we have just agreed that the motion should not be dealt with through a deferred Division. That means that hon. Members will have to vote on the motion tonight, whereas normally they would have the opportunity of a few days to read  Hansard before they did so. Surely that hardly gives the House due time and opportunity to consider what is a complex and technical matter that was considered only this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I anticipated that an hon. Membernot necessarily the hon. Gentlemanwould raise the matter, and I have taken the bother to write something out, which I shall read into the record.
	This is an infrequent but well precedented occurrence. The transcript of the debate in the Delegated Legislation Committee earlier today was produced very rapidly and is now in the Vote Office. I understand that it has been in the Vote Office for some two hours.
	I hope that that explanation helps the hon. Gentleman. If he feels that it is inadequate, it is not for me to tell him what to do, but he can vote against the motion if he wishesthough I am not encouraging him to do that.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that the procedure has precedent but is used infrequently. However, I understand that it was previously used on 8 March. If we reach the stage when this happens every couple of months, it will become part of the norms of the proceedings of the House, and Members will suffer as a result.

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes we deal with precedents from 8 March 1900. If the precedent is last 8 March, that is not too bad in terms of the House's history.

delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees ),

Church of England Marriage Measure

That the Church of England Marriage Measure (HC 511), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament. [Sir Stuart Bell.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 4.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Banks and Banking

That the draft Cash Ratio Deposits (Value Bands and Ratios) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved. [Liz Blackman.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As many as are of that opinion, say Aye; to the contrary, No.

Nick Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given the proportions in the last vote, would it not be reasonable for this to be carried by acclaim rather than by a formal Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: When the previous vote was taken the collection of voices was challenged, and it has been on this occasion. I have no alternative but to proceed with the Division of the House.

Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that one's voice should follow one's vote in the Lobby?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that that is the customary practice, but the Chair has absolutely no intimation of what impact that will have on the numbers.

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITIONS

Benfleet Rail Station Facilities

Bob Spink: I rise to present a petition and survey representing about 800 of my constituents who are concerned about the facilities provided for commuters at Benfleet rail station. The operator, c2c, has achieved much over the past decade on the train service and has greatly improved Benfleet station. I sincerely congratulate c2c on that, but may I gently ask the company to engage sensitively with Wendy Daines, who organised the petition, to find a decent way forward for all the stakeholders?
	The petition states:
	The Petition of Wendy Daines, residents of Castle Point and others,
	Declares that the caf of Benfleet Station gives a good service and should be retained by c2c in its current format, and that toilet facilities should be provided on the London-bound platform for the 3,000-plus passengers who use the station each day
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons implores the Government to press c2c to maintain the facilities in their current state and to add appropriate toilet facilities to the London-bound platform
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000194]

Facebook (Cornwall)

Julia Goldsworthy: It is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of many thousands of people living in Cornwall who would like the county to be recognised as a network region on Facebook. Despite the fact that Cornwall has a population of 500,000, the nearest geographical area represented on Facebook is the city of Plymouth in Devon. Some 14,500 people are members of the group and hundreds have added their names to the petition that they would like presented before Parliament. There are many respects in which people feel that Cornwall's unique needs and identity are subsumed in wider zones. I agree with my constituents that more needs to be done, by Facebook as well as the Government, to ensure that Cornwall's voice is properly heard.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Cornwall,
	Declares that Cornwall should have its own Network Region on Facebook. Cornwall possesses one of the world's oldest natural borders, its own language and flag, and a population of 500,000 people. We therefore believe that the owners of Facebook should now recognise this by introducing the Cornwall Network region.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to put pressure on the owners of Facebook to grant Cornwall network region status.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000193]

Muscular Dystrophy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Liz Blackman.]

Nia Griffith: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise the important issue of the provision of specialist diagnostic treatment and care services for sufferers of muscular dystrophy. Today has seen the publication of the report by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, A Focus on Physiotherapy, a lobby of Parliament by many of those involved in campaigning for the best possible services for muscular dystrophy sufferers, and the delivery of a petition to the Prime Minister at Downing street on the same theme.
	One of the consequences of the considerable investment in the NHS over recent years under our Labour Government is that we are developing ever more expertise and world-class centres that can offer specialised services for particular conditions. However, although more than 60,000 people in the UK have muscular disease or a related condition, we are often talking about relatively small numbers of patients needing specific services in any one area. It is therefore difficult to see how this level of specialist service could be provided in every single locality. If services are not provided in every area, two difficulties arise: that of funding for access to the services, and that of sufferers having to make long journeys.
	One of the reasons that I requested this debate was the distressing evidence we heard in the Welsh Affairs Committee about families who were experiencing delays and difficulties in accessing the specialist services that they needed for family members suffering from muscular dystrophy. But this is not simply an issue in Wales or an England-Wales cross-border issuefar from it. The same problems arise in different regions of England, where there are disparities in ease of access for sufferers because of the differing approaches of primary care trusts.
	There is a tendency, when we think of specialists, to think of consultants and to forget that other health care workers, such as nurses and physiotherapists, develop specialist skills. The Welsh Affairs Committee heard evidence that patients were sometimes referred back to a consultant when a referral to a specialist physiotherapist would have been possible, as well as perhaps being cheaper and involving less waiting time.

Jessica Morden: One of the problems highlighted by the parents of my constituent, Matthew Barrett, who came to lobby Parliament today, was that they often have to attend many different appointments with different specialists in different hospitals. Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of more clinics in which specialists could come together would help patients in that regard?

Nia Griffith: Indeed. I certainly applaud the multidisciplinary approach, which is extremely important. We need to think of imaginative ways of providing specialist services as close to patients' homes as possible.
	There must be a much greater understanding among PCTs and GPs that physiotherapists can now acquire a specialist body of knowledge to enable them to provide a far more effective service to muscular dystrophy sufferers than can be provided by physiotherapists without that additional training.
	Muscular dystrophy sufferers can find themselves being referred to the local physiotherapy team for a standard six-week course of treatment, designed principally for someone who has suffered a minor injury with no complications. There is often no alternative, because a PCT does not recognise the need for specialist services and might therefore consider the usual physiotherapy package sufficient. However, muscular dystrophy sufferers need a much more comprehensive service to provide ongoing, consistent specialist care, rather than whatever can be accessed easily and quickly.
	Our first priority must therefore be to recognise neuromuscular services as specialised services requiring multidisciplinary management of care. I should therefore like to ask the Minister what steps he will take to ensure that the NHS national specialist commissioning group recognises neuromuscular services as specialist. A national group of the UK's leading experts on neuromuscular conditions agrees that patients with muscular dystrophy require specialist care and specialist expertise, which are best delivered by a multidisciplinary team of professionals.
	The provision of expert physiotherapy, orthotics, early cardiac monitoring and intervention, and corticosteroids has been shown to improve muscular function and maintain independent mobility. However, neither the NHS national specialist commissioning group nor Health Commission Wales recognises the service as specialist. As a result, patients with muscular dystrophy, both in Wales and England, fail to receive a package of care and either have to travel long distances to access services or do not receive any services at all.
	In asking the Minister what steps he will take to ensure that the NHS national specialist commissioning group recognises neuromuscular services as being specialist, I would like to point out to him that designating muscular dystrophy services as specialist would give them the recognition that they need and raise the question of how those services can best be provided locally. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we need to acknowledge that the survival and quality of life of some patients with neuromuscular conditions are being compromised, as they do not have access to specialist diagnosis and a multidisciplinary package of care.
	We need to pay particular attention to the significant geographical inequalities across the UK in access to specialist health services for children and adults with neuromuscular conditions.

Hywel Francis: As chair of the all-party carers group, I was very pleased to hear you emphasise the need for local delivery of services. Earlier today, I met Mr. Ray Thomas, who has been a carer for more than 40 years. He attended today's lobby and told me that he had not been to London for 49 years because of the intense care he and his wife have given to two sons, and now one surviving son, Leighton, who has the very rare condition of Becker muscular dystrophy. James, in my constituency, has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Those families, including parents and grandparents, have enormous pressure placed on them, and when they have to travel great distances, the pressure is all the greater. Would you agree with me that when the Government, either in Wales or England, devise support assistance, the needs of the carers, particularly the parents and grandparents, have to be taken into account?

Nia Griffith: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Lady replies, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he should address the Chair. When he uses the term you, he is involving me, which he should not do.

Nia Griffith: I would like to thank my hon. Friend, who has done outstanding work as chair of the all-party carers group, for raising that issue. It certainly has an enormous impact on the whole family if people have to make frequent journeys over long distances to access the treatment that the family member with muscular dystrophy needs.
	We need to recognise that even in the areas where excellent services are in place, people can often be vulnerable, given their dependence on a handful of leading clinicians who in time may move on or retire. I therefore ask the Minister what steps he will take to work with the commissioners of health services and health professionals to improve current service provision across the UK. In particular, what will he do to press the devolved Assemblies and local commissioners of health services to ensure that all patients are able to access specialist diagnostic services and specialist multidisciplinary services across the UK to ensure that adequate diagnosis and care is provided for these complex diseases?
	I pay tribute to the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign for its hard work in producing the report, Building on the Foundations: Focus on Physio, which includes responses from 75 primary care trusts and 122 NHS trusts to date. The key findings of the report include the fact that many patients with neuromuscular conditions do not receive continuous, specialist physiotherapy or any physiotherapy at all. In some areas, local provision is very poor. It notes that current referral practices, particularly for adults with neuromuscular conditions, seem arbitrary and show considerable variation for patients. We certainly heard that in the evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee.
	The report also notes that adults with neuromuscular conditions, principally young adults making the transition from paediatric to adult care, face particular difficulties. That is a matter of concern to me because we know that, at that time in their lives, those people are often going through many stressful changes, perhaps from the education system to a workplace scenario, which can be a very difficult time for them socially, educationally and medically.
	Where there are specialist physiotherapy services, many are vulnerable because they rely on voluntary sector funding, and many physiotherapists are denied opportunities to attend training courses relating to neuromuscular conditions. Sadly, there is a lack of guidelines and standards of care for people with neuromuscular conditions.
	Let me be more precise. What can my hon. Friend the Minister do to ensure that all children and adults with neuromuscular conditions are offered, and have access to, ongoing and timely physiotherapy, including hydrotherapy, when they need it? In particular, what action can he take to ensure that specialised commissioning groups, acute trusts and local health boards have a better understanding of the positive impact that physiotherapy has on the health and well-being of people with neuromuscular conditions, and to press them to give more physiotherapists support and training in muscular dystrophy and related conditions as part of their continuing professional development programmes?
	How will my hon. Friend ensure that a multidisciplinary service is in place for the care of patients with neuromuscular conditions, and how will he encourage specialised commissioning groups to establish neuromuscular working groups to undertake reviews of local services following the lead in the south-west? Any such review should include a gap analysis of physiotherapy services for patients with neuromuscular conditions.
	Clearly it is not for my hon. Friend to tell the Welsh Assembly how to organise the service in Wales; that is rightly within the powers of the Assembly Health Minister and her colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government. Nevertheless, there can be huge benefits in sharing ideas and training across the whole of the United Kingdom, and in the case of muscular dystrophy, sufferers from Wales are currently accessing services in England. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend discuss the best way forward with colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government, and will he ensure that there are no obstacles on the English side for patients from Wales who wish to access appropriate services in England? Will he also agree to meet me and representatives from the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign to discuss the evidence that has been uncovered as part of the charity's Building on the Foundations: Focus on Physio?
	Modern treatments and care have facilitated huge steps forward in increasing life expectancy and improving the quality of life for people with muscular dystrophy, but we must ensure that the very best packages are provided routinely for muscular dystrophy sufferers wherever they live. Some of the detail of the report is quite distressing. We learn that three out of four of 122 NHS trusts and two out of three of 74 primary care trusts do not provide ongoing physiotherapy for patients with muscular dystrophy and related conditions, that half the trusts do not have physiotherapists available for children, that two out of three do not have physiotherapists available for adults with specific training in muscular dystrophy and related neuromuscular conditions, and that 20 per cent. fail to provide financial support for physiotherapists to attend training courses in muscular dystrophy and related conditions. With that distressing picture in mind, we must ensure that we put the position right, and that muscular dystrophy sufferers and their families do not have the additional burden of fighting for funding or coping with excessive travelling if there is any way that that can be avoided.
	We must understand that we are not talking about people coping with a one-off acute medical condition. We are talking about an integral part of the daily and yearly struggle to maintain the best quality of life possible, and we should want nothing but the best for our fellow citizens who are living with muscular dystrophy. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on securing a debate on a very important issue. It is particularly important to families who must cope with the realities of muscular dystrophy. I have experience in my constituency of a couple, Mr. and Mrs. Levene, whose young son Joey has Duchenne muscular dystrophy. They are a remarkable couple, because not only are they coping with Joey's condition, but they have established a charity to raise significant sums of money to invest in new research into the condition. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I would like to use this opportunity to pay tribute to them for making a tremendous difference by raising funds to invest in research.
	We are all aware that neuromuscular services do not always adequately meet the needs of people with long-term conditions, not least the estimated 30,000 people living with muscular dystrophy, their families and carers. Three recent hard-hitting reports published by the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign on the provision of neuromuscular services in England and Wales and access to physiotherapy services highlight the significant variations that still exist for those living in some areas of England and Wales. In particular, these reports detail the problems that some patients with muscular dystrophy continue to have in getting access to, and funding for, the specialist neuromuscular services that can make such a difference to their standard of care and quality of life. It is clearly unacceptable that there are still such large variations in care, and that access to specialist diagnosis, treatment and on-going care services can far too often still depend on where people happen to live.
	It is important that we are clear about what people have a right to expectaccess to health professionals with an understanding of their medical condition and individual needs; timely access to the appropriate specialist neurological services and equipment; information on their condition, communicated in a more sensitive and understanding way; and close involvement for carers and families. We should recognise that in these circumstances it is the family member who in the end provides most of the care and support, and that they need both practical and emotional support.
	There are a number of issues in terms of the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, and addressed in the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign reports, that specialised neuromuscular services should be designated in accordance with the Department's specialised services definition set so that specialised commissioning groups can strategically plan for these services across the whole of England. The national specialist commissioning group advises Ministers on which services are best commissioned nationally, rather than locally. The criteria used are that the service should involve a small number of patients and proceduresfewer than 400 nationally per yearand that the service can be provided at a small number of specialist centres serving a catchment population of about 1 million. Specialised services can also be commissioned regionally by the 10 specialised commissioning groups that are based around regional strategic health authority boundaries. There is a national definitions set of 32 specialised services to assist SCGs, and SCGs can commission services outside that list; it is up to individual SCGs as to whether they decide to designate additional specialist service providers in their patch, and if so, for what services. The south-west commissioning group has, for example, established a neuromuscular working group with a specific remit to review local services.

Nia Griffith: Could that model not be rolled out in other parts of the country, as I understand that the review has made good progress?

Ivan Lewis: What I am happy to say to my hon. Friend is that that is best practice and we would hope that in every part of the country where there are clear inadequacies in the level of support and services, regional SHAs would look at the south-west model and ensure they learn from it in their region. It is not for me as a Minister to direct every SHA and primary care trust as to how they ought to approach these issues, but it is clear that existing services are in many cases inadequate, and it is a good principle that if the south-west model demonstrates a sensible way forward, each region should follow it.
	It is for NHS commissioners to ensure that commissioned pathways of care always reflect both the specialist diagnosis needs and localised multidisciplinary packages of care. PCT commissioners need to commission services that reflect the local needs of their patients and be informed of good practice in other health economies. I agree with my hon. Friend that dialogue between Wales and England on these matters would be sensible, and I am certainly willing to facilitate it.
	We recognise that world-class commissioning is at the heart of our health service's capacity to achieve better outcomes for patients and better value for money, which is why we are driving the notion of world-class commissioning through the health service. We want such commissioning to become a reality in every community, because that is clearly not the case at the moment.
	In improving the commissioning of services, the establishment of local involvement networks is important. They will play a key role in encouraging and enabling a wide range of people to influence the commissioning and provision of health and social care, bringing real accountability to the whole system, from commissioning to direct provision. It is important that part of how we improve services is by giving a much stronger collective voice to local populations and local groups associated with specific conditions. They can influence the decision makers in the health and social care service to ensure that services are more responsive. We cannot simply leave this to managers, bureaucrats or professionals; we need to find ways of ensuring that the voice of those who know best about such conditions is heard.
	My hon. Friend raised the specific issue of access to physiotherapy services, and she emphasised their distinct importance for those living with muscular dystrophy. It is important to point out that record levels have been invested in the NHS and that there has been a major expansion in its work force; for example, the number of physiotherapists employed in the NHS has increased by 41 per cent. since autumn 1997, to pick a random date.
	The White Paper, Our health, our care, our say, sets out the future direction for health care, including access to allied health professions. The Government are collaborating with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy to pilot and evaluate self-referral to physiotherapy, and we await the report of that evaluation. There is a sense that it is often difficult to access the service, so simplifying things and allowing people to self-refer will provide expanded access to physio services.
	The national framework for long-term conditions was published in March 2005 and has a 10-year implementation period. It sets 11 quality requirements to improve treatment, care and support from diagnosis to the end of life for people living with neurological conditions, including muscular dystrophy. It underlines the need for appropriate, integrated services planned and delivered around individual needs, and the need to support people in living as independently as possible with the best possible quality of life.
	The national service framework is based on the best of the NHS's core values: modernisation; breaking down professional boundaries; and partnership between agencies. Although it focuses on improving services for people with neurological conditions, people who have other long-term conditions will also be supported to live a full and independent life. Achieving the standards set out in the national service framework is a major challenge for some local providers. There are no central targets or milestones, and it will instead be for people working at local level, on the front line, to ensure that their commissioning decisions truly reflect the NSF's principles.
	Since the NSF's publication, the Department has provided service planners, commissioners and providers with guidance, expert advice and support to help them deliver the quality requirements. However, in line with our policy of devolving responsibility to local organisations, we are moving to a phase with much greater emphasis on local accountability and local autonomy. Our approach also recognises that the NSF cannot be a stand-alone priority; it needs to be closely aligned and integrated into mainstream NHS and social services local activity.
	Importantly, the Berlin wall between health and social care came down a long time ago, but, sadly, patients and their families in too many communities tell us that the Berlin wall between different agencies prevents them from getting the easy-to-access services that they need and deserve. As has been mentioned by Labour Members, they also tell us that there are sometimes too many professionals fishing about in people's lives and that people want continuity of care, care co-ordination and a lead professional who takes responsibility for examining all the family's needs. It is incredibly important that we position how we deal with this condition in the context of what we are trying to do with health and social care more generally.
	Just this year, the Department, in collaboration with the third sector, published the National Service Framework for Long-term Neurological ConditionsNational Support for Local Implementation 2008. It outlines the Department's NSF programme, including how much progress we have made so far and the milestones for the work that we still have to do. It offers people support at a local level in terms of best practice for how they can improve services. It has also received input from voluntary organisations, which are often ahead of the NHS in this field.
	I have said a bit about how the NHS and social care are supporting people with long-term conditions. Our other public services and voluntary organisations are crucial, too, to ensuring that people have the best possible quality of life in these incredibly difficult circumstances.
	I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. Over the past 40 years, it has ensured that the condition, which has not always had a high status or been taken as seriously as it should be, has been given a loud national voice. As a consequence, major advances have been made over the past 10 years that were not made in the preceding 30 years. As well as its campaigning role, the charity provides important information and advice to families in these circumstances. It provides part of the cost of equipment for patients and makes a significant contribution to research into the condition.
	I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has brought to the attention of the House a crucial issue for a number of families in our country. I shall reflect on her contribution and I, or a relevant ministerial colleague, will meet her to discuss how we can improve the experience of the services for families and for people who have the condition.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eight o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

Immigration

That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper No. 321), a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th February, be disapproved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 51.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Local Government

That the draft Local Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.
	 The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 158.

Question accordingly agreed to.